Why NOT under oath?

[wordsmythe]

White House OKs Rove, Miers interviews on U.S. attorneys - CNN.com

White House OKs Rove, Miers interviews on U.S. attorneys

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled.

But Miers and Rove will not testify under oath, the White House said.

The announcement came after White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, which had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

The White House's allowance of unsworn interviews only "is incomplete," said Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

"We would be able to interview the four people we requested ... but only in private, not under oath and with no transcript," he said.

Although Fielding indicated that he was not prepared to negotiate in the matter, Schumer said lawmakers would try to get tougher requirements for the interviews.

"He wanted this to be a conversation rather than a hearing, but let's have a conversation under oath and with a transcript," Schumer said.

A senior administration official says President Bush will reiterate support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and will discuss the matter concerning Miers and Rove at 5:45 p.m. ET. He may take questions during his five- to six-minute talk.

Earlier Tuesday, Bush called Gonzales to reaffirm his support in the wake of controversy concerning the firings.

The Web site politico.com posted a story Tuesday morning citing anonymous sources as saying the White House had begun seeking candidates to replace Gonzales.

But White House spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday that Bush was standing behind Gonzales, saying the telephone call was made to "reaffirm his strong backing" of the attorney general.

[wordsmythe]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says key presidential aide Karl Rove should answer questions under oath and on the record on the firings of U.S. attorneys -- turning down a White House offer to have him interviewed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Not interviewing them under oath would be a waste of time.

[booger]

Sen Leahy, doesn't care one minute about what Rove has to say. It's G.W. and Dick there after. Impeach, Impeach. Hide and wait, it will come.

[wordsmythe]

I don't think they will impeach them. The LAST thing the Dems want in 08 is someone in there who would be perceived as competent at this point.

The majority of people aren't happy with Dick N Bush and it's best to keep it that way.

Things like saying these two can talk but not under oath does much more for them than any impeachment because it shows the administration’s dishonesty and willingness to make it easy for their people to lie.

[wordsmythe]

Bush ready to fight lawmakers on U.S. attorney firings flap - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he has put forward "a reasonable proposal" to allow Congress to learn how and why the Justice Department and the White House came to fire eight U.S. attorneys.



W wants to hide this from public view. Our taxes pay him and he works for us.

[Army_of_One]

Shouldn't a President be able to discuss things in private with his advisers and not have it show up in the media the next day?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

President Bush says he has put forward "a reasonable proposal" to allow Congress to learn how and why the Justice Department and the White House came to fire eight U.S. attorneys.

While I can agree with the sentiment on the matter, isn't three postings with the same basic news headlines a bit over the top? There are issues here but it's not Watergate.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Shouldn't a President be able to discuss things in private with his advisers and not have it show up in the media the next day?

Yes he should until they recieve subpoena.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

While I can agree with the sentiment on the matter, isn't three postings with the same basic news headlines a bit over the top? There are issues here but it's not Watergate.

Evidently I don't think so. You're welcome to skip it if you don't care to read it.

[Highwayman]

Why not under oath? I can think of a few reasons.

Lying to Congress is against the law and punishable with the same penalties as prudery.

There is no evidence that there was any wrongdoing with dismissing eight attorneys.

President Klinton fired all but one, total of 93, all at once. Other Presidents before him fired attorneys. This is normal procedure and the Presidents don’t have to explain their reasons to anybody. Bush offered to turn over all the documents and let Congress talk to some of his staff. That’s more than he has to do. He could, and should have, told the Democrats to go pound sand.

Democrats are taking a nothing and attempting to turn it into a political side show. But that’s OK because a large group of voters are tired of the Beltway games and simply ignore this BS. Others the do pay attention and understand this is nothing more than partisan politics by Democrats to smear Bush.

The last group of folks are the far left Kool-Aid drinkers that believe Bush is the greatest evil of the 21st century and everything coming out of the White House is an outright lie. They’re easy to spot so I don’t have to point them out.

Wordy, are the black helicopters flying over your house yet?