« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
White House: Transcripts Would Create "Perjury Trap"
The White House is only willing to permit aides to be interviewed in private, with no oath and no transcript. To which Congress says, OK, except for the lack of a transcript. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) argued on the Senate floor earlier this month, they need a transcript in order to hold aides to account for lying. It's a crime to lie to investigators, but without a transcript, it becomes much more difficult to prosecute that crime.
Which, it would seem, is precisely the point. During a backgrounder with reporters today, a "senior administration official" said that the arrangement had been offered in order to "provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony." False testimony is a crime; whereas false information is, well, lamentable. Transcripts would mean testimony and that would create "a perjury trap" -- I guess in the sense that a liar might get caught.
The official continued soothingly: "misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth."
But for some reason, Specter, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and others just won't trust in the White House's good intentions.
Comments (19)
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 5:03 PM:So were Bush and Cheney avoiding a "perjury trap" when they were interviewed by the 9/11 Commission jointly and NOT UNDER OATH?
Or did the Libby verdict strike fear that in fact, yes, you can be held to account?
C 92 wrote on June 28, 2007 5:15 PM:Wow, the "senior Adminstration official" said a whole lot. Must have been a lawyer.
"...misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not..."
True enough. Misleading (whether under oath or not) is not a crime as the "senior Administration official" says.
But he or she also sets up an interesting dichotomy between "false information" (lamentable) and "false testimony" (a crime).
Where would one encounter "false information?" Maybe in a private meeting, perhaps?
Where would one counter "false testimony?" Possibly at a sworn Congressional hearing, perhaps?
"Senior Administration official" is saying what we believe to be true -- that WH officials will not testify in a Congressional hearing because they will be committing a crime.
Now, I will leave you to speculate whether "false information" could show up in a sworn Congressional setting. Judging from both AG Gonzales,' Kyle Sampson's and the Schloz' testimonies, the answer is "absolutely." All have "mis-spoken" under oath and had to "clarify" later.
Why should Rove et al be any different?
Rebel wrote on June 28, 2007 5:17 PM:Perjury trap?
LMAO!
Harriet and Sara can simply take the 5th amendment. A transcript of 350 invocations of the 5th would be difficult to drum up perjury charges against.
Code word = fear
The White House & Republicans are definitely starting to show it.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 5:24 PM:But, but... It wouldn't create a perjury trap unless they perjured themselves, would it?
bobh wrote on June 28, 2007 5:40 PM:What kind of laugable upbringing did these idiots have?
Being forced to NOT lie by threat of legal action if you do lie is not a purgery trap. its called accountability for your actions.
Redshift wrote on June 28, 2007 5:41 PM:Republicans know better than anyone that an invitation to testify while not under oath says "please lie to me." The Republican congress had oil executives in for a hearing, and refused to put them under oath. And surprise, several later admitted their statements weren't true. They had Gonzales in and blocked a motion to put him under oath, and surprise, he lied to them!
Nobody but hardcore wingnuts is buying this. They don't want to be under oath and on record because they want to be able to lie. Just like the Regent University mob at the Justice Department, who had to figure out what their testimony was going to be -- guess what? If you're going to tell the truth, you don't have to coordinate your stories.
chimpeach wrote on June 28, 2007 5:56 PM:If everyone in the White House these days wasn't an habitual liar, maybe it wouldn't be so easy to fall into a "perjury trap." Here's a novel idea. Try telling the f*cking truth for a change.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 7:17 PM:We heard this "perjury trap" BS from Goodling's lawyer. There is no "trap" if they invoke the 5th and truthfully testify.
Throw the WH legal counsel's memos in the fire.
uncle vester wrote on June 28, 2007 7:33 PM:These people are so full of sh*t they don't know which end to stick in the hole in the outhouse.
Shorter Senior Administration Official:
"We have nothing to hide, which why we are so desperate to hide it."
How do they get away with it?
justadood wrote on June 28, 2007 7:35 PM:Unfortunately, these are politicians, and, in many cases, lawyers. Lying comes as easily to them as it does to old-school huckster used-car salesmen.
If they don't wanna be pu under oath, too bad...this isn't some club, where we're chatting over beers while watching the latest baseball game. The issues discussed are serious issues, going to the heart of our Constitutional republic, and the exercise of power within its framework(s). As such, it should be entirely reasonable and appropriate that testimony be under oath, and recorded, since it deals with history (as in, making history), and the future of our country (something they're trying to pervert as hard as they can).
the spotlight needs to be shown, hot and bright, on this massive roach's nest, and a metric ton of RAID used to ensure that once gone, they *stay* gone.
Jane wrote on June 28, 2007 8:10 PM:Q: What does a perjury trap catch?
A: Liars.
Jane wrote on June 28, 2007 8:16 PM:SC: Lock -- for all you Second Amendment fans, that's lock and load.
Q: What does a perjury trap catch?
A: Liars.
The Oracle wrote on June 28, 2007 9:44 PM:(7:17 p.m. post) "We heard this "perjury trap" BS from Goodling's lawyer. There is no "trap" if they invoke the 5th and truthfully testify.
Throw the WH legal counsel's memos in the fire."
The way I figure it, Bush will pull a stunt like the Republican governor of Kentucky pulled (pardoning everyone in his office). So, the day after the November 2008 elections, Bush will pardon everyone in his White House, from top to bottom.
Therefore, Democrats should offer limited immunity to all the White House Republicans they want to question under oath (and in public), essentially the same deal struck with Monica Goodling, so all American citizens can hear White House Republicans try to explain away their criminal activity, as well as the criminal activity of their bosses in the White House.
Of course, there'll be slew of "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" responses, but the media frenzy over one "immunized" Republican after another being questioned, week after week before the November 2008 elections, will assure Democrats huge electoral gains at that time, all across our nation.
Otherwise, Democrats can expect more "obstruction of justice" moves by members of the "culture of corruption" Republican Party, all with the intent of stalling until Bush signs a blanket pardon for all his fellow criminal co-conspirators in the White House which is bound to occur shortly after the November 2008 elections are over.
Thus, Democrats should offer limited immunity now to all the lower-level Republicans in the Bush White House, since they'll be pardoned eventually by Bush anyway.
JNagarya wrote on June 29, 2007 2:09 AM:Interesting characteriziation of testifying under oath: "perjury trap".
Er, yes, exactly. And it goes back millenia, and is neither Democratic nor Republican.
But there isn't any trickery to it: one takes the oath, the terms of which are clear at the outset, consciously and knowingly, so the only "trapping" would be that done by the person who took the oath, and then lied.
JNagarya wrote on June 29, 2007 2:19 AM:Though it is yet to be seen, I'm wondering if the Senate Judiciary Committee criticism of the DC Circuit judge who apparently lied during confirmation re. having participated at the White House in detainee, torture, etc., issues, is a preparation for SJC court action by preemptively neutralizing that judge by forcing him, down the road, to recuse himself from any SJC court action/s concerning those, and perhaps other, issues.
covered wrote on June 29, 2007 6:57 AM:Did anyone else but me have two other words pop into their minds when they first heard the utterance "perjury trap?" Karl Rove. Only a twisted sociopath like him could make up such a preposterous meme. Perjury trap??? Are you shi**ing me? Raise you hand and swear to tell the truth for the first time in your life...dickhead.
crphsbzsrf wrote on June 29, 2007 9:56 AM:free screensaver and backgrounds
crphsbzsrf wrote on June 29, 2007 9:57 AM:free screensaver and backgrounds
tofubo wrote on June 30, 2007 10:22 AM:re White House: Transcripts Would Create "Perjury Trap"
means only one thing, they couldn't tell the truth and walk back into cheney's inner sanctum and expect to walk out again (there's a joke about a man-sized safe in there somewhere...)