# They will testify, but not under oath.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2007, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754 "2007-03-20T19:39:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/41 "2007-03-21T00:57:39Z")
Well, it looks like what we have here is a [constitutional showdown:](http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/ap/2007/03/20/ap3535428.html) > [@](#): > > A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down. > > Democrats’ response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides. > > “Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Go into your corners and come out fighting! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/42 "2007-03-21T00:58:07Z")
Can you impeach Pres and VP at the same time or do separate trials follow.? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/43 "2007-03-21T01:22:18Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Can you impeach Pres and VP at the same time or do separate trials follow.? [/QUOTE] That would be touchy, because if they impeach Bush AND Cheney, then Pelosi becomes POTUS. No Republican in Congress, no matter how dangerous it is to their re-election chances, is going to approve a Pelosi presidency, even a lame-duck one. Not to mention that at that point, it starts to look like a (legal but shady) coup attempt by the Democrats, which is an impression that _they_ aren’t going to want to give. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/44 "2007-03-21T06:12:32Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] What enforcement powers to Congress have in such matters, anyway? Say they subpoena Rove. Bush says, over my dead body. Congress says, well … OK. Do they have the equivalent of US Marshals that they can send to bring in Rove in handcuffs? [/QUOTE] Tne Congress has no enforcement powers. [Here is an outline of the procedure.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress) > [@](#): > > 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. This version of the procedure was put into place in 1857 and exists in order to provide a balance of power so the House and Senate cannot run amok and jail all their political opponents with contempt charges, also to be within the restrictions laid out in the United States Constitution that Congress cannot pass a Bill of attainder, and declare someone criminally guilty without trial. The Congress is also restricted in that contempt citations can only be brought on matters that relate to legislative purposes within the jurisdiction of the committee that brings the charges. The process can create a conflict of interest in the Executive Department since the US Attorney responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute is in the Executive Department and can be terminated at will by the President. Neato, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/45 "2007-03-21T06:17:58Z")
So, again, tell me about these ‘checks and balances’ that prevent the President from acting like a dictator/emporer. And do not give me ‘well, after eight years and numerous disasters, he can’t be elected anymore’. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/46 "2007-03-21T06:24:27Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] So, again, tell me about these ‘checks and balances’ that prevent the President from acting like a dictator/emporer. And do not give me ‘well, after eight years and numerous disasters, he can’t be elected anymore’. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] This particular brouhaha just might result in a revision of the law on contempt of Congress which was enacted in 1857. Actually, there is no automatice, foolproof method for government. They all rely on the participants acting in good faith and for the public interest. I’m not sure Bush is aware of either of those terms. ---
**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 21, 2007, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/47 "2007-03-21T10:17:57Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] So, again, tell me about these ‘checks and balances’ that prevent the President from acting like a dictator/emporer. And do not give me ‘well, after eight years and numerous disasters, he can’t be elected anymore’. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Yes, the contempt of Congress procedure is kind of clunky, and requires executive branch officials to institute a court proceeding potentially against other executive branch officials. However if the President or Attorney General interferes too blatantly in the prosecution of a contempt of Congress claim, Congress has the impeachment power. As the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress) article points out: > [@](#): > > For example, Henry Kissinger, James Watt, and Janet Reno have all been cited by Congress for contempt, though in all these cases the Congress and the executive branch subsequently reached an agreement on the delivery of documents before the matter reached a grand jury. In cases involving delivery of documents, Congress currently seems to view contempt of Congress as a tool to reach an agreement with the executive branch, rather than as a law to punish the contemptuous. If either side took this to the mat, it would be an interesting Constitutional crisis. But with the Supreme Court having decided _U.S. v. Nixon_ (which dealt with executive privilege in a judicial proceeding, not a Congressional investigation) the last time something similar was in play, I think the administration would ultimately lose. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/48 "2007-03-21T10:44:56Z")
Interestingly I can understand the position perfectly. Roughly translated it is: ‘we are perfectly willing to talk to you, but only privately so we don’t have to have some grandstanding git do a Perry Mason on us’ It strikes me as a reasonable offer. Listening to that plonker interrogating Clinton, and having recently read about the Oppenheimer ‘security clearance’ hearing has left me with the impression that the US goes in for adversorial rather than inquisitorial hearings - not very civilized. If the hearing is in private then it is likely to be a lot more polite. To be honest, I would expect them to be a lot more candid in private. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/49 "2007-03-21T11:02:36Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Interestingly I can understand the position perfectly. Roughly translated it is: ‘we are perfectly willing to talk to you, but only privately so we don’t have to have some grandstanding git do a Perry Mason on us’ [/QUOTE] Roughly translated this is:“Get at the truth.” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/50 "2007-03-21T11:14:18Z")
> [@FRDE](#): > > To be honest, I would expect them to be a lot more candid in private. Why the hell would you expect that? They’ll have a hard enough time telling the truth when facing criminal prosecution for lying; why wouldn’t they lie when there are no consequences for it. ---
**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 21, 2007, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/51 "2007-03-21T11:16:22Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Interestingly I can understand the position perfectly. Roughly translated it is: ‘we are perfectly willing to talk to you, but only privately so we don’t have to have some grandstanding git do a Perry Mason on us’ It strikes me as a reasonable offer. Listening to that plonker interrogating Clinton, and having recently read about the Oppenheimer ‘security clearance’ hearing has left me with the impression that the US goes in for adversorial rather than inquisitorial hearings - not very civilized. If the hearing is in private then it is likely to be a lot more polite. To be honest, I would expect them to be a lot more candid in private. [/QUOTE] No. Roughly translated it is: We are willing to discuss the matter with you on these conditions-it is done in private, we are not under oath, you may not record or discuss what is said, and you may not question anything we say. It strikes _me_ as obstruction of justice. ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/52 "2007-03-21T12:07:58Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I’m fine with that. My comments assumed that the endgame was resignation/impeachment of Gonzales/Bush. The spectre of impeachment has been raised in the other thread, so I didn’t think I was too far off base with that assumption. [/QUOTE] I don’t imagine that impeachment is really feasible at this late stage in the game. It would cost too much and take too long. At this point the administration is only getting phantom pains from their masculinity, so going through the national pain of an impeachment gets us nowhere. It is, however, essential that we restore the equalibrium to the checks and ballances before we go any farther. A wooden stake into Karl Rove wouldn’t break my heart either ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/53 "2007-03-21T12:44:41Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] No. Roughly translated it is: We are willing to discuss the matter with you on these conditions-it is done in private, we are not under oath, you may not record or discuss what is said, and you may not question anything we say. It strikes _me_ as obstruction of justice. [/QUOTE] It strikes me that they are unwilling to go through a courtroom drama, but quite willing to discuss things rationally. They could be pulled in front of a committee and humiliatingly interrogated by a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy - regardless of whether or not they have a private chat. Probably they want to explain that it was a cockup - I doubt that they are naive enough to imagine that they’ll not be taped While I don’t approve of what they did, because it was stupid, I think that they would be even more stupid to volunteer themselves for a public lynching. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/54 "2007-03-21T12:47:20Z")
[QUOTE=furlibusea] going through the national pain of an impeachment gets us nowhere. [/QUOTE] Sometimes going nowhere is preferable to going somewhere else. A protracted battle which paralyzes the top levels of justice may be the best we can hope for til 2009. [The missing emails](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3227.html), whether found and released, or guarded and hidden may ultimately determine what course we end up taking. > [@](#): > > In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/55 "2007-03-21T13:10:58Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] It strikes me that they are unwilling to go through a courtroom drama, but quite willing to discuss things rationally. [/QUOTE] I have no doubt they would like avoid the drama of public testimony, but that does not excuse them from it. Being under oath and on the record is central to public transparency and the constitutional oversight responsibility of Congress. And what gives you the perception that this request is rational, and not an attempt to avoid accountability? > [@](#): > > While I don’t approve of what they did, because it was stupid, I think that they would be even more stupid to volunteer themselves for a public lynching. Volunteer? If they are subpoenaed, there is nothing voluntary about it. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/56 "2007-03-21T13:55:05Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] No, but Rove taking the Fifth, or stonewalling, would be kind of embarrassing. I suspect the reason they want public testimony is to see Rove sweat when he’s lying. [/QUOTE] That’s worth a thread in itself: Would Rove break a sweat when lying? ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/57 "2007-03-21T14:02:09Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] I have no doubt they would like avoid the drama of public testimony, but that does not excuse them from it. Being under oath and on the record is central to public transparency and the constitutional oversight responsibility of Congress. And what gives you the perception that this request is rational, and not an attempt to avoid accountability?Volunteer? If they are subpoenaed, there is nothing voluntary about it. [/QUOTE] Heh, well under subpoena I would submit my replies in writing - after I had taken 24 hours to consult counsel I might even develop Taurrette’s syndrome ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/58 "2007-03-21T14:03:51Z")
There is a legitimate objection to public testimony – the “grandstanding git” problem mentioned by **FRDE** above. And testifying under oath runs the risk that the questioners will veer off into forbidden territory in order to score political points. However… …I believe that, given the track records of the players thus far, the administration is not in a position to refuse to testify under oath in private on such speculative grounds. I believe they should agree to transcripts and testimony under oath, in private. If the Democrats then abuse this position by moving the questioning away from the agreed-upon grounds, the administration may withdraw. But the White House’s insistence now, before any chicanery is even hinted at, that there be no oath strikes me as… improvident. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/59 "2007-03-21T14:08:41Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Heh, well under subpoena I would submit my replies in writing - after I had taken 24 hours to consult counsel [/QUOTE] Failure to appear in person when subpoenaed to do so by Congress is a crime. Perhaps your counsel can get you window cell in the penitentiary. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/60 "2007-03-21T15:04:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] There is a legitimate objection to public testimony – the “grandstanding git” problem mentioned by **FRDE** above. And testifying under oath runs the risk that the questioners will veer off into forbidden territory in order to score political points. However… …I believe that, given the track records of the players thus far, the administration is not in a position to refuse to testify under oath in private on such speculative grounds. I believe they should agree to transcripts and testimony under oath, in private. If the Democrats then abuse this position by moving the questioning away from the agreed-upon grounds, the administration may withdraw. But the White House’s insistence now, before any chicanery is even hinted at, that there be no oath strikes me as… improvident. [/QUOTE] this is a completely reasonable compromise – the most important part in my mind being the recorded transcript (A lie is a lie, whether under oath or not, and will be judged as such) – and your impression of improvidence is one I share. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=4)