House Dems May Accept Unsworn Statements from Rove

[Hissyspit]

Source: National Journal

House Dems may accept unsworn statements from Rove

By Dan Friedman
CongressDaily
June 17, 2008

House Judiciary Committee Democrats on Monday renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth. The committee on May 22 subpoenaed Rove to testify at a July 10 hearing on the White House's role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and his alleged involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama.Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the White House has ordered Rove not to testify.

But in a letter sent Monday to Luskin, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said Luskin recently suggested to the committee staff that Rove appear "without a transcript or oath," but without any limit on the committee's right to seek sworn testimony later. Luskin's proposal diverges from a White House offer to allow former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear for a similar interview on the condition the committee not seek future testimony from her, the letter said.

"This is an important step forward," Conyers and Sanchez said of Luskin's proposal. "We are encouraged by this suggestion," they added. Their letter indicates a willingness by House Democrats to back off their past rejection of a White House offer last year to have Rove and other aides answer questions in private without an oath or transcript. Democrats had been insisting that the aides testify under oath in public.

Nonetheless, the letter by Conyers and Sanchez also called a request by Luskin that the interview covers only the Siegelman matter and not the U.S. attorney firings "unacceptable." Their letter suggests that the committee might agree to interview Rove without taking an oath or having a transcript made of the session if Rove agrees to allow questions about the broader politicization of the Justice Department." Any concerns about or objections to specific questions can be dealt with" when Rove meets with the committee, the letter states. Even without an oath, lying in interviews with congressional staff is illegal. Conyers and Sanchez also noted that the committee has not received any formal objection to its subpoena. "We want to re-emphasize that we expect Mr. Rove to attend the hearing," they wrote.

Read more: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0608/061708cdam2.htm

---

[supernova]

1. Do they ever plan on NOT being spineless?

:eyes:

[libnnc]

16. They're working on drafting a memo to address that concern. n/t

[spotbird]

45. This was doomed from the outset

The real question is why they started it.

[Lugnut]

17. Apparently not.

They're useless.

[saigon68]

19. They have been "Joementumed"

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Lieberman does not serve on the House Judiciary Committee

[saigon68]

38. I know that

It's a new term implying that certain DINOs march in lockstep to kill Islamics etc. with Joementum at the lead of the mob armed with hoes and pitch forks

You know its kind of a frankenstein moment when the villagers chase the "creation" into the building that eventually is burned down.

[SpiralHawk]

2. WTF?

Enabling more republicon lies and spin...

Ptooey...

[Hugin]

3. What's the frickn' point?

:eyes:

[beac]

7. Unsworn = License to Lie

And you known that Turdblossom will get up there do NOTHING BUT lie!

What's the point indeed. :puke:

[DJ13]

4. Oh come on, we all know how honest Rove is

Theres no need to bother with a silly, unnecessary oath.

:sarcasm:


And to the other poster who asked about the Dems showing a spine, the Dem Congressional leadership cant do much more than talk tough when it comes to Bush's crimes, as their loyalties were bought by the same corporate interests that backed Bush.

Thats why they quietly supported the many crimes Bush committed, and passed every every piece of legislation that helped to undermine our rights.

Thats why they dont dare fully investigate, nor impeach, Bush and his minions.

[indepat]

5. Why bother?

[pocoloco]

6. Wimp-Ass Motherfuckers!!!

[chill_wind]

8. "...lying in interviews with congressional staff is illegal". Gosh! That will stop him dead!

Pointless.

[damntexdem]

9. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!! OH, PLEASE, NO!

Am I being too subtle?

[bean fidhleir]

10. Conyers needs to retire now. He's long past his good-until date (nt)

[AlinPA]

11. Spineless. nt

[FreepFryer]

12. Completely unacceptable! (n/t)

[lovuian]

57. I have to say this Democratic Congress is such a sham

let him come in not under oath OMG

lets play we are investigating

[pattmarty]

13. You've gotta be fucking kidding!!!!!!!

[DailyGrind51]

14. No oath, no perjury, no frog march, no orange jump suit

No f---ing way!

[libnnc]

15. God damn it!

If he won't testify UNDER OATH, then put his fat ass in JAIL!

THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

[Vinca]

18. These people are all talk and no spine. How disgusting. nt

[truebrit71]

20. Fucking Spineless Bastards.

I am however, not surprised at all...can you honestly say that you expected anything less from them?

[potone]

21. This spaghetti isn't even al dente.

[L. Coyote]

22. Only commoners are required to tell the truth under a dictatorship! What country is this??

Why can't Karl Rove make a committment to tell the truth under oath?
Is he somehow better than the rest of us, a member of a special class of citizens?

[Wizard777]

23. DON'T DO IT!

What the hell is wrong with these people?

[MuseRider]

24. Correct me if I am wrong but

don't the Democrats in the Congress in this committee have the full weight of the law and our constitution backing them?

[bean fidhleir]

37. Sure, but so what? Those weapons are only useful to vertebrates. (nt)

[ananda]

25. Dems are just neofascist lackeys and tools.

Totally and utterly spineless and pathetic.

[NoodleyAppendage]

27. INHERENT CONTEMPT, YOU SPINELESS ENABLERS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Sorry for the shout...

I've had enough of the spineless bullshit. The House Dems are WORTHLESS! It's time to clean house (literally).

J

[notadmblnd]

28. so Rove has got the dirt on Conyers and Sanchez?

I wonder what it is?

[JerseygirlCT]

29. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

UNDER OATH. That's the only way.

Why do they not see that there's no reason in the world for them to negotiate? What's in it for us? Where's the benefit to the country?

[Demit]

30. Disgusting. Time to take names. Then throw the bums out.

[aquart]

31. NO! No conditions. NONE.

Send marshals and haul their asses in.

How can anyone be this gutless?

[Dogtown]

32. Worse than nothing.

Cowardice & misfeasance.

[Zorra]

33. Dear Congress: Rove does not want to testify under oath because he is harboring

incriminating information.

If were to testify under oath, and were to lie while testifying, he would be committing another crime, ie, perjury.

The reason that he is refusing to testify under oath is because he does not want to divulge the aforementioned incriminating information.

If you agree to take unsworn statements from Rove, and do so, Rove will lie to you.

Therefore, you will be wasting your time, and my money.

So, please, do your job. Invoke inherent contempt and arrest the corrupt little fascist weasel.

[Supersedeas]

34. is this the type of leadership that we voted for Pelosi??

[Jefferson23]

35. Sorry, but the Dems here are fucking full of shit..again

Screw the rule of law, that seems to be the message from my party over and over again. Rove needs to be under oath, yesterday!

[Mojorabbit]

36. I throw up my hands and

give up. I am sick of all of them.

[JNelson6563]

39. Forget that, I say bring back the rack.

Pig boy is all for torture, I say let him have his fill.



Live the Dream Rove, hop aboard you big talkin' tough guy.

Julie

[Doctor_J]

40. They should make it clear - very clear - that they are assuming every statement is a lie

Repeat the word lie as often as possible.

[bdamomma]

41. gutless just arrest his a$$

[Imagevision]

42. Conyers needs to retire, get some youngblood in there...

[CanonRay]

43. No, no, no, no, no, no, no

A thousand times no. It is a license to lie, which KKKarl does not need.

[Beetwasher]

44. DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ

This could very well be propoganda put out by Rove.

[LeFleur1]

46. What In the World

Why bother to have the guy in if he's not under oath. He might as well have said, "I'll only come in if I can lie and not be charged with perjury."

If they really are going to go through with this farce the first question should be, "Why don't you want to testify under oath?" For the record.

[dmr]

51. I'm beginning to wonder if you're right

If you google this, there is nothing in the news. It could be more tricks for which Rove is famous - I'm hopping so because I want to see that rat-bastard sitting in the hot seat before the world with his shit-eating grin wiped right off his ugly fat face - something I would pay good money to watch.

[indypaul]

47. And just when does compromise become appeasement ??? n/t

[redqueen]

48. Oh fuck the hell outta that. (nt)

[redqueen]

49. "Even without an oath, lying in interviews with congressional staff is illegal."

Then WHY is nothing ever done about it?

[blackspade]

50. what is the freakin' point?

This is a total cave.
We are talking about the House of Representatives here right?
The folks that directly represent us, right?
Why in the FUCK are they letting anyone dictate terms to them?
I am beyond disgusted.

[Nevernose]

52. Lying to Congress carries the same penalties as Perjury

And that's the argument that the current Republicans have always used to get out of being sworn in. Then, even if they're convicted of lying to congress -- Iran/Contra, for instance -- they can claim they were doing their patriotic duty and still get jobs with later administrations and with Fox News.

The special catch here is "without ... having a transcript made of the session." Then nobody can prove they lied to congress. Everybody will have a slightly different recollection, and there will be nothing concrete to nail them on. It really would be just saying "it's okay to lie, as long as the voters at home think we're doing something."

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. I am surprised that anyone is surprised...

What is it gonna take for folks to GET IT ??????

There is no significant difference between the 2 parties.
Hell, Hillary proved that.
We have watched this reality for years, esp. since the 2006 elections.

The majority of Congress is not....ever..ever...gonna support anything
that does not create money for its members.
They play like...but results are the same.

And there are not enough voters who care enough to remove
all of the treasonous Congress critters.

Conyers is revealing his leanings. Pelosi did so way early on.

It's a pisser.
It's the truth.
It's real.

damn

[SleeplessinSoCal]

54. This had better be a trap!!!

[DUlover2909]

55. Why isn't Kucinich chair of that committee? He clearly cares more than anyone about accountability.

[no limit]

56. They are fucking assholes

Fuck the democrats. This is just getting fucking stupid. The only reasonable explaination for any of this is that they are in on it.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. That would be a mistake

Karl Rove's word, even under oath, is worthless. Let's not make lying easy for him.

He's under subpeona. If he's a no-show, arrest the bastard.

[bow-tie]

59. Why are they so

afraid of this puke? How has he made it this far w/o any retaliation?

[Duer 157099]

60. Frankly I care less about the oath than I do the transcript

Having a transcript is completely non-negotiable, I hope Conyers at least will recognize that. Although I'd rather they not give even an inch, and I'd rather they go the inherent contempt route, the oath is meaningless to Rove - it's the trascript that matters.