# Congress will interview Rove and Miers . . . but not under oath. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763 "2007-03-20T20:19:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/1 "2007-03-20T20:19:45Z")
Sure, we’ll let Rove and Miers talk to congress about the DOJ firings, as long as they don’t have to promise officially to tell the truth." [This](http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/03/20/614883.html&cvqh=itn_rove) is our government’s idea of openness. Guess that’ll clear everything up. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/2 "2007-03-20T20:24:19Z")
Not only not under oath: > [@](#): > > “Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas,” Fielding said in a letter to the chairman of the House and Senate judiciary committees. Thankfully, the Democrats smell blood in the water and there is nooooo way they are going to accept that. > [@](#): > > Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said he would still press for White House aides to testify under oath, saying that White House counsel Fred Fielding “indicated he didn’t want to negotiate” whether Rove and others would have to appear in a full hearing. “That doesn’t mean we’re not going to try,” Schumer said. Good job Chuck. You want to ask them why they lied to Congress. It’s best not to give them the forum to lie again. ---
**Author:** ![Hung\_Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hung\_Mung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hung_Mung)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/3 "2007-03-20T20:29:25Z")
Whatever. Rove is virtually untouchable and Miers, should she have anything valuable to say, is under Bush’s protective wing. It’s a nice gesture, I suppose, but ultimately fruitless. All the nastiness won’t come out for another five years or so (far less than I previously believed) when folks start writing their books. Of course, the books won’t matter a damn. They will come out, though. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/4 "2007-03-20T20:35:59Z")
[QUOTE=Hung Mung] Whatever. Rove is virtually untouchable and Miers, should she have anything valuable to say, is under Bush’s protective wing. It’s a nice gesture, I suppose, but ultimately fruitless. All the nastiness won’t come out for another five years or so (far less than I previously believed) when folks start writing their books. Of course, the books won’t matter a damn. They will come out, though. [/QUOTE] Still, if they can’t get an explanation under oath, they should not settle for the kind of crap Rove is trying to pull here. Rove won’t testify under oath? Good, then every morning he can start his day with Chuck Schumer asking why he needs to have lying as one of his options. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/5 "2007-03-20T20:47:57Z")
Oath. No oath. No matter. Rove can lie equally well either way. The issue is really the White House making everyone understand that ordinary rules don’t apply to one of their own. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/6 "2007-03-20T20:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Oath. No oath. No matter. Rove can lie equally well either way. [/QUOTE] But there is a distinction. Lying under oath to congress is illegal. So I say make him take a bigger risk if he’s going to lie. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/7 "2007-03-20T21:17:01Z")
“Negotiation over. Here’s your subpoena.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/8 "2007-03-20T21:33:20Z")
[QUOTE=vibrotronica] “Negotiation over. Here’s your subpoena.” [/QUOTE] [Exactimundo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress). > [@](#): > > In the federal law of the United States, contempt of Congress is the crime of obstructing the work of United States Congress, with a punishment of up to one year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines. > > The United States Congress generally brings this action for **refusing to testify before a Congressional committee** , or failing to provide a committee with requested documents. This would be more viable in the House, since: > [@](#): > > In order for someone to be convicted of contempt of Congress, the congressional committee which has suffered the contempt first reports a resolution that the affected individual is guilty of contempt. This takes a majority vote of the committee. The full United States House of Representatives or United States Senate then must approve the resolution, which sends the matter to an assistant United States attorney or higher with the Department of Justice, who may call a grand jury to decide whether to indict the affected individual, and prosecute if the grand jury affirms an indictment. Pelosi to Rove: “Testify under oath, fatboy, or your lardbutt is headed to jail.” Of course, Alberto could kill this one, but it would look pretty damned bad if he did. Might even get non-fringe types talking about impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/9 "2007-03-20T21:34:17Z")
Wheeeeee!!! Anyone else getting “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” blasts from the past? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/10 "2007-03-20T21:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The full United States House of Representatives or United States Senate then must approve the resolution, which sends the matter to an assistant United States attorney or higher with the Department of Justice, who may call a grand jury to decide whether to indict the affected individual, and prosecute if the grand jury affirms an indictment. How’d you like to be the U.S. Attorney who gets handed the subpoena on the issue of whether U.S. Attorneys can be fired for disobeying the wishes of the President? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/11 "2007-03-20T21:43:55Z")
Yeah, but Clinton got a blow job. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/12 "2007-03-20T21:52:14Z")
[QUOTE=Billdo] How’d you like to be the U.S. Attorney who gets handed the subpoena on the issue of whether U.S. Attorneys can be fired for disobeying the wishes of the President? [/QUOTE] It’d be amazing how many USAs got “poor performance evaluations”, I suspect. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/13 "2007-03-20T22:08:07Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Yeah, but Clinton got a blow job. [/QUOTE] **Lib** , I truly hate to steal the thunder of your masterly sardonic post, but you know damn well that every time that gets brought up, some rock-ribbed Republican will pop up to note that he was impeached, not for the blow job, but for **lying about it under oath**. I trust the relevance to the issue of the circumstances under which Rove and Miers are willing to testify is fairly clear? By the way, would somebody hand Fielding a copy of the Constitution, and suggest he read what the Supreme Law of the Land has to say about (a) the powers of the Congress (cf. Article I) and (b) the powers of the Counsel to the President and his political and tighty-rightie advisors (uh, my copy doesn’t seem to have any definition of those offices in it). In short, Fielding doesn’t get to choose whether they testify under oath, Bush doesn’t get to choose whether they testify under oath, the Congressional committee is the group that gets to choose whether they testify under oath. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/14 "2007-03-20T23:10:57Z")
This turn of events just makes me sick. I smell the republicans walking away from this not brought to honest account. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/15 "2007-03-20T23:11:10Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Of course, Alberto could kill this one, but it would look pretty damned bad if he did. Might even get non-fringe types talking about impeachment. [/QUOTE] Both Bush and Alberto know that he’s on his way out, so maybe the AG is being kept in place by Bush so he can do just that. It would explain the delay in firing. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/16 "2007-03-20T23:19:28Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] Both Bush and Alberto know that he’s on his way out, so maybe the AG is being kept in place by Bush so he can do just that. It would explain the delay in firing. [/QUOTE] They’re running out of people to throw under the bus on behalf of Rove. I don’t see a “no oath interview” placating Congress the way the administration obviously expects it to. Aaaannnnd, breaking news [confirms that suspicion](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/20/national/w150413D53.DTL) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/17 "2007-03-20T23:28:38Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] I don’t see a “no oath interview” placating Congress the way the administration obviously expects it to. [/QUOTE] But did you _see_ Bush’s announcement? He was **MAD**. All must Quail before the power of an **Angry President**! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/18 "2007-03-20T23:28:59Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] They’re running out of people to throw under the bus on behalf of Rove. I don’t see a “no oath interview” placating Congress the way the administration obviously expects it to. Aaaannnnd, breaking news [confirms that suspicion](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/20/national/w150413D53.DTL) [/QUOTE] Shit, meet fan. This confirms my suspicion that Gonzo is being kept in place just to play a few more Admin dirty tricks. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/19 "2007-03-20T23:35:07Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] But did you _see_ Bush’s announcement? He was **MAD**. All must Quail before the power of an **Angry President**! [/QUOTE] Oh, but that was funny. I could practically hear him sputtering as I read it. > [@](#): > > Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president’s terms: in private, “without the need for an oath” and without a transcript. > > \ > > “If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed,” Bush said. “If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see.” “My lawyers said they don’t have to talk to you! You’re all just mean, and I’m gonna tell everybody you’re bad and not to vote for you!” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763/20 "2007-03-20T23:42:17Z")
“If the Democrats really want to see the right information, they should really let my subordinate lie with impunity to a few people in private, rather than at risk of jail to many in public.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-will-interview-rove-and-miers-but-not-under-oath/396763.md?page=2)