Under oath or not at all. Anything less only offers the crooks at the WH political cover.

Er, if Sen. Cornyn doesn't understand what all the hubbub is about, why did he meet with Fielding? Was he hoping that Fielding could explain it to him?

Under oath. Period. End of discussion.

Didn't Republicans sell warrantless wiretaps and every other violation of the Bill of Rights with the red herring, "if you have nothing to hide...." why is it a problem?

Well, then I say if Rove and Miers and Sampson have nothing to hide, why not testify under oath? An innocent man shouldn't fear the law, should he?

Though the oath is certainly symbolically important, my understanding is that it doesn't make a difference legally. Oath or no, lying to a Senate Committee is a crime. I'd prefer a public hearing, because it'd be a nice reminder that we're supposed to be living in a participatory democracy. The transcript is the absolute deal-breaker, though. If they can't get the hearing on record, it's worthless.

Under oath or not at all. Don't let these guys get away with it, Mr. Shummer. Under oath or not at all.

UNDER OATH, UNDER OATH, UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!!!! I swear to God, if the democrats compromise on that one point AT ALL - even a little bit - I am going to scream!

As long as the C*O*M*P*R*O*M*I*S*E is done by the White House, fine. If the Senate Dems cave on the imperative of getting testimony under any circumstances varying from the historical norm --public, under oath, with a transcript -- I will scream. Are the Dems now reverting back to their lily-livered acquiescences of the recent past? History is on our side, the law is on our side, and the American public is on our side. Check out the new Pew Research poll at:

http://seattletimes.nwsouce.com/html/nationworld/2003631864_goppoll.html

The Republican machine is broken. If Congressional Dems cave in on this afer putting up this hard a fight, they aren't worth saving, and we will see the next Pew poll saying "goodbye Democrats" and "hello third parties."

I'm calling Schumer's, Feinstein's and Leahy's offices now. It's really pathetic how much these people need to have us babysitting them and pushing them to do the right thing, every step of the way.

This is what I just do not understand:

Why are politicians so afraid to tell the truth?

Now I know that's a tempting opportunity to poke fun at politicians but I'm being serious. I'd like to ask each and every representative in Washington why they hate being honest. If a person has done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. If a person has been honest they'll never be caught in a lie. Did none of them have a decent mother or father that told them that lying was wrong? And I won't even get into the how religion views and judges people who are deceitful...and many of these politicians wear a flag on one lapel and a cross on the other. >.>

Not being under oath should not even be an option. They should ALWAYS be under oath. And meeting behind closed doors is criminal in and of itself. The last time I checked they are "public servants" and as a member of that public I want some answers, some PUBLIC answers...and some HONEST ones too.

Look at John Cornyn run to the White House to get tips on undermining the rule of law and obstructing juctice. Disgusting.

The compromise is you come and testify under oath because that's the way we do things when Congress investigates. Because the WH has made the 'oath' an issue you can't drop it now. It would be like giving them permission to lie to your face.

What's unreasonable about the Dem position? Why should they be compromising?

Is Bush compromising on the Iraq $$$ bill?

gcs at 4:00 PM, good point. The GOP sold infringement on privacy as "if you've got nothing to hide..." arguments.

Time to throw it back in their faces. If the Bush administration has nothing to hide, what's the problem with testifying in the open, under oath?

There should be trstimony under oath, in public and open to the both parties on the committee. Democrats shouldn't fear the White House or their threats.

While the Dems in the House are crowing about receiving a mandate from the American people regarding extricating ourselves from Iraq, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Dems won overwhelmingly won because the American public was sick and tired of Republican scandals and corruption. Backing down, even one iota, is a poke in the eye to Americans who voted for cleaner, more transparent government. I hope the Dems abide by the public's wishes and not back down on this.

What a slime Specter is. In the document dump he was seen coordinating his activities with the administration. Here he's probably floating the administration's bottom-line position, but making it seem that he's being independent.

They're supposed to be working for the public; let them testify in public.

If they want to lie, let them do it under oath. I think elected officials and their appointees should be put under oath for the duration of their terms when they're sworn in. They'd have to shut up or stop lying... either would be a welcome change of pace.

And the "no transcript" thing is so laughable that I assume it was included to give the White House something to move on in negotiations.

We also need testimony from U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla and Justice Department spokeswoman Monica Goodling.

Who at Dept of Homeland Security authored the report and later it leaked to U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, and why did Issa contact Gonzales' office?
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/03/22/government/775lam032207.txt

Come and Tell the truth you bastards, or we'll cut your head off for the world to see.
We'll be the deciders this time.
Man, feel the surge.

Don't you understand? "Oath" is only important when we're talking about Bill Clinton and Democrats.

Why does anyone think those questioned will tell the truth even under oath? Yes, they should testify under oath, but isn't it more important to have the testimony public and with a transcript, since they probably won't hesitate to lie if it is private and/or "off the record."

Yeah, why compromise here? No one is on the "no-oath" side. Check any pole that has been run on this.

Technically, I believe any statement to Congress has to be truthful or it's a crime. SO "under oath" is kind of a redundant symbolic gesture.

Maybe it's only as important as we think it is. The "I wasn't under oath when I lied to Congress" defense would be pretty lame I imagine. But yeah, symbolically the oath would be good.

However, public testimony is the most important issue. Whatever lies they tell will be far more damning before the public if there is TV footage. Far more than a paper transcript alone.

Whatever Cornyn might come up with will undoubtedly be worthless neo-con gibberish. What a loser; anyone who trusts that lop-eared son of a bitch must be a 29%er.
As Nancy so eloquently told Inhofe, "Elections have consequences, Dogballs." LOSER

Am I the only one who can see a compromise that works. Here's the offer - behind closed doors, no oaths, but a transcript, transcript not released immediately, BUT everyone who doesn't answer questions under oath is subject to recall which will take place under oath.

I want to nail these pukes. I want to give them an easy way to lie. I know we have other witnesses who will testify under oath, in public. Then we release the answers given by Rove, Miers, etc. And then drag them back and, in public, ask them to explain their lies. Let's help them hang themselves rather than create an unnecessary confrontation.

I think this is pretty clever maneuvering. Bush actually wants Congress to issue the subpoenas so he can refuse them and turn this into a fight over "Executive Privilege" which will have to go to the courts and will take years to resolve. As was pointed out, lying to Congress is illegal even when you're not under oath, and if the statements are public then we can swarm all over them and tear apart the lies and evasions. Also, Bush can now no longer hide behind his "I'm the one who offered a compromise" crap. I would love to see a shining white knight rise up and strike down this wretched Administration with one mighty blow, but that's never going to happen. I'll settle for the termites in Congress, eating away slowly at the foundations until they crumble.

check this out from gop.com:

Friday, March 23, 2007
RNC Chairman Mike Duncan Announces Legal Team

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Mike Duncan today announced the appointment of Blake Hall as RNC General Counsel. In addition, the RNC announced that Sean Cairncross has been promoted to RNC Chief Counsel, and that Tom Josefiak will serve the RNC in an Of Counsel and senior legal advisory capacity.

“In order to serve this Party and this nation effectively, the RNC must always make sure that it follows not just the letter, but the spirit of the law. The legal team we are announcing today will do exactly that. Blake, Sean, and Tom are vigorous, talented, and experienced. I have the utmost confidence that they will do an outstanding job,” Duncan said.

Blake Hall, National Committeeman for Idaho, has been active in the Republican Party at the local, state, and national levels for more than two decades, including service as Chairman of the Committee on Credentials for the 1996 and 2004 Republican National Conventions and as the Sergeant at Arms for the 2000 Republican National Convention. He is currently a partner at Anderson, Nelson, Hall and Smith.

As Chief Counsel, Sean Cairncross will oversee the day-to-day operations of the RNC Counsel’s Office, including ensuring that all activities of the RNC, its officers, and its employees are in compliance with applicable federal and state election laws. Cairncross has served as the RNC’s Deputy Counsel since 2004. Prior to that, he was a litigation associate at the Washington D.C. law firm Covington & Burling. Cairncross received his J.D. from NYU in 2001, his M.Phil from Cambridge University in 1998, and his B.A. from American University in 1997.

Tom Josefiak was RNC Chief Counsel during the 2005-2006 election cycle. He served as General Counsel to both the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee and Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. Josefiak, a native of Adams, Massachusetts, is a graduate of Fairfield University in Connecticut and Georgetown University Law School.

If there's no legal difference whether they're under oath or not, then why not under oath? The argument cuts both ways.

Even though both lying to congress and lying under oath are illegal, I expect that Karl Rove lying to congress would not upset the christian conservatives at all. Lying after taking an oath might.

I think its a massive ego thing. They don't owe anyone an explanation about anything...ever. They were elected and g*dammit its their government (not yours or mine mind you) and no one is going to tell them what they can or cannot do. What they do is right because THEY do it. Period. Bush does not want to give the appearance that he or his closest advisors are in any way answerable to Congress. The worst thing for them is to be asked questions in public view that they would have to answer under oath. The fact that they are going to lie, oath or no oath, is actually secondary to their sense of their own unassailable primacy. They are battling to save face. Now they may have thought way back in the wee recesses of their primitive brains that what they have been up to is damaging to our constitutional form of government and the trust that the American people place in that government...but I doubt it.

There is nothing to negotiate but the time and place, soon rather than later.

The issue here is nothing less than a continuing White House effort to use a specious theory of presidential power to cover up and obstruct investigations into scores of felonies orchestrated and/or perpetrated by the Bush White House and vice president.

If one does not see this, he is either naive or not paying close attention.

Don't forget this more than under oath and publicly, with transcript.

The Fielding proposal said:

"No follow-on sessions of questions"

"Limited narrowly to WH approved topics" (can't follow any trails uncovered in the questioning).

ALL of these limits are unacceptable curbs on Congressional (or any legal) investigation.

Whut a revoltin' development!

I think that Arlen (mister single bullet theory)
Specter is the real trouble maker here. Wasn't he the one who inserted the line into the Patriot Act to allow the White House to hire and fire the U.S. Attorneys without going through Congress?

The Democrats had better be warned not to cower in fear of the neo-con Bush bully-boys. Bully-boys have to be confronted, and not given-into.

Gonzales, Rove, Miers, et. al. (and, Bush & Cheney, if need be) must:--

* Testify under oath. Oaths are important, for witnesses need to be held accountable for what they say. Isn't this obvious?

* Testify in public. Meeting behind closed-doors, at the local bar, or in a hotel room-- is the stuff of dictatorships-- not democratic Republics. Bush continually howls about "democracy"-- well it's time that he show some respect for our Republic.

* Testify with transcripts. What if Rove's testimony contradicts that of Miers, for example? Without a transcript, we have a "he-said-she-said" moment. We all know that Rove is a bald-faced liar who would come-out with more mendacious spin, if caught with his pants-down.

* Consequences. In the event that perjury and/or other crimes are committed-- that charges are made and the perpetrators are frog-marched off-to-jail, where they belong.

There can be no "compromise" on these points. For to do so, would effectively be saying that Rove, Miers, Gonzales, et. al. can vomit bald-faced lies and get away with criminal activities!

Isn't this obvious?

[Didn't Republicans sell warrantless wiretaps and
[every other violation of the Bill of Rights with
[the red herring, "if you have nothing to hide...."
[why is it a problem?
[
[Posted by: gcs
[Date: March 23, 2007 04:00 PM]

This was one of the points I made a few days ago in a blog post at the Cafe:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/eric_stepp/2007/mar/20/
a_few_points_on_bushs_speech_this_afternoon

This is about finally having the constitutional confrontation that's been smoldering for years. Ever since Bush came into office if you want to count it that way.

Does the principle of "unitary executive" hold water or not? Does the Congress have the authority to do oversight or not?

"Compromise" means finding a way to avoid settling those issues. If that's what the senators want, they should never have got into this fight in the first place.

First question for Sampson when he testifies?

Were you pressured or coached in any manner by the White House, directly or indirectly, when your lawyer asked for a delay in your testimony?