Congress should ask Mrs. Ashcroft to testify about the hospital room scene.

[pnwmom]

They should ask who called her to arrange for Gonzales's visit, and what she recalls about the conversation in the hospital room.

She never worked for Bush, so there's no question of Executive Privilege. And she has no security clearance, so there isn't anything she would have heard that she couldn't share with Congress.

Right?

[Kagemusha]

1. Uh.. spousal privilege?

And I know you're kidding about the security clearance part. You just have to be.

But I think it boils down to spousal privilege, and if anyone thinks that shouldn't apply (because people with other, non-compatible privileges were in the same room... uh, is there privilege compatibility? Is that even in the books at all?), then the spectacle of dragging a man's wife, an ordinary citizen, into Congress and forcing her to testify unwillingly against her husband and her President under penalty of contempt. Yes, Congress can do that. But it's pretty lousy politics, to the point it might be seen as a very last resort.

[Lindsey]

2. I wish she'd come forward but she very well could have an

"accident." There was an entire thread about this last week and a lot of people were suggesting that she be called. The very state of our Republic hangs in the balance. At this point, the way they're playing, we must not continue to underestimate them. We must do what we can do, within the rule of law. The Republicans (Rove, Cheney, *, Gonzalez,etc.) of '07 simply can't be underestimated and that's been one of our major mistakes.

[Lindsey]

4. Kagumesha: you said it'd be "pretty lousy politics." Have you been

keeping up with things over the past 7 years?...just askin'.

[Kagemusha]

12. Yeah, I have. And being seen to beat up on vulnerable women backfires.

I don't think that's unique to the last 7 years either.

[pnwmom]

15. Why would that be beating up on her? Her husband did nothing wrong.

Why is it "beating up" on her to ask who it was that telephoned her to get her to back down on her "no visitors" rule?

Why is it beating up on her to ask what Gonzales said to her husband?

[SeattleGirl]

3. How would she be testifying against her husband, if Congress asked

her to come in to testify regarding the hospital room visit? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

6. She wouldn't. As you know, her husband was the victim, not the miscreant.

And Mrs. Ashcroft, who isn't covered by the claim of "Executive Privilege," could probably shed some light.

[SeattleGirl]

7. That is my thought, also.

And I do think it would be a good idea to bring her before Congress, to ask her exactly what happened, including the phone calls she got, and the one she made.

[Kagemusha]

13. Is everyone getting collective amnesia that Mr. Ashcroft is a committed Republican?

Where do people get the idea that even were Ashcroft not bound by the threat of prosecution for divulging national security secrets, that he would be volunteering to get to the head of the line, his wife with him, to testify about these matters and defy the President of the United States, of his own political party?

Maybe that's so, but I find it unlikely in the extreme.

In a perfect world, it'd be a good idea to bring her to testify but... it's going to be one giant mess if it's done in the world we do live in.

[pnwmom]

16. Why do you think Mrs. Ashcroft would want to protect the people

who invaded her critically ill husband's sick room against her expressed wishes?

If I were her, I'd be furious with them.

With regard to Mr. Ashcroft, he may well be a committed Republican, but that doesn't mean he supports Gonzales anymore, just as it doesn't mean that he would approve of Gonzales's eavesdropping plan.

[SeattleGirl]

17. My post was in reference to MRS. Ashcroft testifying.

Not MR. Ashcroft.

And I'm not sure it's unlikely.

After all, SHE is the one who called Coomey (sp?) about the calls from the White House.

She was acting as a wife, concerned about her husband's well-being, NOT as a Republican.

There are some things that even die-hard party-loyalists would not put up with. Manipulating one's spouse while he/she is ill and sedated is one of them.

[Kagemusha]

19. That's in the past to her now.

Maybe it's just impossible for you and the other posters here to get this through the cognitive dissonance but, this woman has no reason to have any emotional desire to help a Democratic Congress bring down a sitting Republican President. The meeting was slimy as hell but no one died from it. If she voluntarily aided Congress to go after Bush, she and her husband would spend the rest of their lives in political and social ostracism as traitors and unpatriotic citizens. Therefore, the woman might well tell Congress, I won't talk - you can't make me, and if you're going to throw me in jail for it, so be it.

Then what?

I said it will be a mess, and I stand by that.

[SeattleGirl]

20. Whatever.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

23. No reason for them not to ask her. And they certainly could make her,

if they chose. You can't take the 5th unless you did something wrong, and I'm sure she doesn't want to go to jail.

I think you're the one with the cognitive dissonance. She may be a Republican but that doesn't mean she isn't still seething over how they treated her husband. I think loyalty to her husband would trump loyalty to Gonzales any day. And if she were subpoeneaed -- ordered to testify -- then she would have the perfect excuse to get her payback.

[Kingshakabobo]

25. Wait. Now she is a stonewalling partisan hack?

What happened to the poor defenseless woman we are beating up on?

[Blue_In_AK]

8. That's what I was wondering.

I don't think Ashcroft is in any way criminally involved with this particular issue (I could be wrong). If that's the case, then this wouldn't seem like a proper instance to claim spousal privilege. The best possible scenario would be if both she and her husband decided to tell Congress exactly what happened, and why. I really think this can be done without divulging any "real" security issues, and then maybe we can get past all this administration stonewalling and start taking some actions. Someone really needs to step foreward and take the lead here...it's time for all the truth to come out, not just in this case, but so many, many more.

[SeattleGirl]

9. Exactly. I think Mrs. Ashcroft's testimony could be devastating

to the Bush admin.

[pnwmom]

5. Doesn't apply AT ALL -- her husband didn't do anything wrong.

As sick as he was, he said NO and told them to go away, that Comey was in charge.

She wouldn't be testifying against her husband, but against whoever ordered the invasion of his hospital room AGAINST HER FIRMLY EXPRESSED WISHES.

In other words, no testimony she gave could harm her husband -- it wouldn't be about her husband's actions at all. So spousal privilege doesn't apply.

And there's no such thing as Presidential Privilege, as much as Bush wishes there were.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Hmm, dragging a man's wife into a dispute.....

Where have I heard that before?

[pnwmom]

14. Bush/Cheney dragged her into the dispute, when the decision

was made to invade her husband's hospital room, AGAINST Mrs. Ashcroft's wishes.

If the woman has some information that could shed a light on the proceedings, what does her status as Ashcroft's wife have to do with anything? Her husband, by all accounts, did nothing but tell Gonzales that Comey was in charge.

[grasswire]

11. do it in private session

Just Leahy, Specter, and Mrs. Ashcroft.

[SeattleGirl]

18. Under oath, and before the entire committee.

In private, perhaps. I'm not advocating being mean or nasty to her at all; she's not in the government.

I would just like to hear her side of the story from her. (Or at least, have the Committee hear it.)

[Disturbed]

21. John Asscroft did testify in a private meeting & confirmed what

Comey testified to at the open Hearing. It was announced and then got buried in other news. The Mrs. would most likely plead the 5th because she was not supposed to be in that room when classified matters were being discussed.

[SeattleGirl]

22. But she didn't do anything wrong. Gonzo and the other guy did.

Against her wishes, too.

If someone does something against the law in your presence, YOU are not guilty, the person perpetrating the crime is.

Thus, Gonzo is guilty, not Mrs. Ashcroft.

She was more than pissed off at the invasion of Mr. Ashcroft's privacy, and his need for rest at that time.

I don't know why she would need to plead the 5th.

[pnwmom]

24. She couldn't plead the 5th.

It is not a criminal offense to be in a room when OTHER people decide to discuss classified matters. It is THEIR responsibility not to talk in front of the person lacking a security clearance, not the other way around.

Also, Mrs. Ashcroft could testify as to matters that involve her alone: such as who exactly telephoned her to arrange for the hospital visit (Bush? Cheney?) , and what was said in that conversation. Mr. Ashcroft could not testify as to those matters, which are of interest to Congress.

[blondeatlast]

26. The SJC is getting some rock-solid info from somewhere. Someone's

privy to some high level conversastion and is leaking it to the SJC.

Remember Martha Mitchell? She never testified either...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1450746

[pnwmom]

27. Yes! Let Mrs. Ashcroft be another Martha Mitchell.

Wouldn't that be something . . .

[blondeatlast]

28. I'm thinking that she may already be.

As in the source of the leak.

I don't care for Ashcroft, but his departure from the Bushistas indicates he holds some principles. Maybe one or both Ashcrofts got as disgusted by Prez. Dick and his puppet :shrug: as Mrs. Mitchell did with Tricky Dicky...