# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/81 "2007-03-22T15:14:06Z")
Someone needs to explain to W, very, very clearly, that when his administration is being investigated on suspicion of malfeasance, he does not get to set the terms and procedures. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/82 "2007-03-22T15:37:37Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Someone needs to explain to W, very, very clearly, that when his administration is being investigated on suspicion of malfeasance, he does not get to set the terms and procedures. [/QUOTE] Will the explanation use hand puppets? ---
**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 22, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/83 "2007-03-22T23:20:39Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Shrug [/QUOTE] Well, no arguing with _that_-you win. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/84 "2007-03-23T08:18:00Z")
Fair point. I should have said that they’ll be pulled before a Congressional committee if Congress wants to do so. That will happen regardless of private testimony. However ‘private’ you can be sure that some will leak out, and I would expect all parties to be taping things even if they promise not to. I expect that they **personally** would like an opportunity to get things over quickly, so that they can get on with their lives. As I see it they are not obviously holding any trumps, but they think that an explanation would benefit them - which makes it very interesting. ---
**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 23, 2007, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/85 "2007-03-23T11:23:45Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Fair point. I should have said that they’ll be pulled before a Congressional committee if Congress wants to do so. That will happen regardless of private testimony. [/QUOTE] They wouldn’t pull this stunt if they weren’t arrogant enough to think they could get away with it. [QUOTE=FRDE] However ‘private’ you can be sure that some will leak out, and I would expect all parties to be taping things even if they promise not to. [/QUOTE] Excuse what has become common procedure for this administration by claiming that the other side would have/does/will do the same thing? Won’t fly, sorry. Also, since we know who would be on that committee, any leaks would start an immediate investigation and contempt of congress charges. This is another way the Admin can muddy the waters and stall the actual investigation, which is one of the major reasons Bush wants to go this route. [QUOTE=FRDE] I expect that they **personally** would like an opportunity to get things over quickly, so that they can get on with their lives. [/QUOTE] There isn’t a criminal in the world who wouldn’t have minded having an opportunity to skip testimony, accountability for their acctions and official court proceedings and go home without any punishment. [QUOTE=FRDE] As I see it they are not obviously holding any trumps, but they think that an explanation would benefit them - which makes it very interesting. [/QUOTE] See above. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/86 "2007-03-23T12:47:06Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Someone needs to explain to W, very, very clearly, that when his administration is being investigated on suspicion of malfeasance, he does not get to set the terms and procedures. [/QUOTE] What malfeasance, specifically? Seriously, what about these firings is in conflict with law at any level? I have not followed this closely, and I ask this sincerely, so pissy responses will not be warranted or appreciated. My understanding is that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the executive branch and while we may find the reason for firing them trivial or stupid or whatever, there is nothing specifically against the law in firing them for whatever reason the executive branch detects or imagines. Or is there? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/87 "2007-03-23T12:50:20Z")
To clarify my last post: firing them specifically to sabotage or destroy an active investigation would obviously be wrong. Is there evidence that this was the case? If not, my question stands. ---
**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 23, 2007, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/88 "2007-03-23T13:03:20Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] To clarify my last post: firing them specifically to sabotage or destroy an active investigation would obviously be wrong. Is there evidence that this was the case? If not, my question stands. [/QUOTE] In the case of [US Attorney David Iglesias](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801502.html), he was contacted by two members of Congress who wanted him to speed up investigations of Democrats before the 2006 election. He declined, and was fired six weeks later. The investigation is necessary to discover if the White House ordered the firings as part of a pattern of political coercion. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/89 "2007-03-23T13:14:51Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] In the case of [US Attorney David Iglesias](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801502.html), he was contacted by two members of Congress who wanted him to speed up investigations of Democrats before the 2006 election. He declined, and was fired six weeks later. The investigation is necessary to discover if the White House ordered the firings as part of a pattern of political coercion. [/QUOTE] Again (and I’m not trying to build the Republican position, just trying to understand), what law is violated in firing an attorney who declines to follow the direction of the people who have the power to fire him? Doesn’t the law permit this firing? Don’t these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the executive branch, who (with the exception noted) may fire them for whatever reason satisfies it, whether or not the rest of us find it a worthy reason? If that’s not the case, can someone explain what specific law may have been violated and what evidence supports the existence of such a violation? I can do my own reading on this, obviously, but I was hoping someone could summarize in two or three sentences–e.g., “The Constitution stipulates the following…in performing such-and-such an act, a violation of the xyz clause may have occurred…” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/90 "2007-03-23T13:29:16Z")
I don’t think it’s legal to try to influence the results of an investigation that way. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/91 "2007-03-23T13:59:50Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Again (and I’m not trying to build the Republican position, just trying to understand), what law is violated in firing an attorney who declines to follow the direction of the people who have the power to fire him? Doesn’t the law permit this firing? Don’t these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the executive branch, who (with the exception noted) may fire them for whatever reason satisfies it, whether or not the rest of us find it a worthy reason? If that’s not the case, can someone explain what specific law may have been violated and what evidence supports the existence of such a violation? [/quote] We don’t know if any laws were violated - that’s what Congress would like to find out. If the DOJ had come out and simply stated that the USA’s were being terminated because the President wanted to make changes, I don’t think there would have been as much attention paid to this. Sure, people would have likely complained, but the matter would have faded into the background pretty quickly. But when we find out that rationale for why the 7 USA’s were terminated are bogus (performance related issues for several of the USAs not backed by their perfomance evaluations), that the rational for why the USAs were terminated keeps changing, that several members of Congress (as well as others) apparently attempted to influence ongoing criminal investigations (such as with Iglesias), and a whole host of other issues - I think Congress would be remiss in their oversight duties if they _didn’t_ look into it. In short, you may serve at the pleasure of your employer. But that doesn’t give him the right to impeach your character, nor does it give him the right to fire you for something which may be against the law. The first isn’t necessarily against the law (although an argument for slander/libel could be made for some of the dismissed USAs); the second is. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/92 "2007-03-23T14:22:29Z")
[QUOTE=eponymous] We don’t know if any laws were violated - that’s what Congress would like to find out. If the DOJ had come out and simply stated that the USA’s were being terminated because the President wanted to make changes, I don’t think there would have been as much attention paid to this. Sure, people would have likely complained, but the matter would have faded into the background pretty quickly. [/quote] Yes, that’s my impression as well. > [@](#): > > But when we find out that rationale for why the 7 USA’s were terminated are bogus (performance related issues for several of the USAs not backed by their perfomance evaluations), that the rational for why the USAs were terminated keeps changing, that several members of Congress (as well as others) apparently attempted to influence ongoing criminal investigations (such as with Iglesias), and a whole host of other issues - I think Congress would be remiss in their oversight duties if they _didn’t_ look into it. This is where my confusion lies. Even if there were lies, for whatever perverse PR reason, made about the firings, at the end of the day those lies don’t make the actual firings illegal. Right? May well speak to the judgment of those who responded, but it doesn’t make the first act against the law. If it wasn’t performance (let’s concede that) and the end of this investigation determines that they were fired for some trivial, but legal, reason…then what? > [@](#): > > In short, you may serve at the pleasure of your employer. But that doesn’t give him the right to impeach your character, nor does it give him the right to fire you for something which may be against the law. Sorry, that’s still my question. “Influencing ongoing investigations” is the job of the AG, so long as that influence, up to and including firing, isn’t criminal. What crime is alleged in this mess? Again, not trying to be difficult. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/93 "2007-03-23T14:38:35Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] What malfeasance, specifically? Seriously, what about these firings is in conflict with law at any level? [/QUOTE] As Kenneth Starr might have said, we won’t know until we investigate. Where there’s smoke, etc. . . . More specifically, see [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Details_about_the_individual_attorneys) for a list of attorneys fired and speculative reasons for their firings. It might not be illegal, but it’s damned suspicious. For general discussion of just how politically independent the Justice Department **should** be of the White House, see [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=413583) thread. ---
**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 23, 2007, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/94 "2007-03-23T14:45:08Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] “Influencing ongoing investigations” is the job of the AG, so long as that influence, up to and including firing, isn’t criminal. What crime is alleged in this mess? Again, not trying to be difficult. [/QUOTE] It does not have to rise to a constitutional crime to deserve an investigation. It is quite likely that [Sen. Domenici violated Senate ethics rules](http://www.slate.com/id/2161310), and to the extent that the White House acted on his recommendations, they are complicit in unethical activity. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/95 "2007-03-23T14:48:38Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] As Kenneth Starr might have said, we won’t know until we investigate. Where there’s smoke, etc. . . . More specifically, see [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Details_about_the_individual_attorneys) for a list of attorneys fired and speculative reasons for their firings. It might not be illegal, but it’s damned suspicious. [/QUOTE] Thanks, the link was helpful. This seemed the most obvious example of possible malfeasance: > [@](#): > > The most well known of the dismissed U.S. attorneys was Carol Lam who had successfully prosecuted then Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham for corruption. On May 11, 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that her investigation had expanded to investigate Jerry Lewis, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee.[51] On May 10, 2006, Lam had also notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official.[52] On May 11, Kyle Sampson urged the White House counsel’s office to call him regarding “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.”[53] She continued to work as the events unfolded and ordered her staff to finish with the indictments they were working on before her last day in office. In February 2007, two days before her last day, her office indicted Dusty Foggo, the former Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a major campaign contributor Brent Wilkes (who was previously named on Cunningham’s guilty plea).[53] Trying to derail a valid (i.e., non-frivolous, non-insane) investigation is not a worthwhile exercise of executive power, it seems to me. Let’s assume the speculation is absolutely true. If this is proven, what specific law would have been violated? Can anyone cite? Again, if it’s not illegal, then it amounts to a “well, I won’t vote for that guy again” kind of conclusion, ISTM, a singularly pointless conclusion in this circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/96 "2007-03-23T14:58:33Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] This is where my confusion lies. Even if there were lies, for whatever perverse PR reason, made about the firings, at the end of the day those lies don’t make the actual firings illegal. Right? May well speak to the judgment of those who responded, but it doesn’t make the first act against the law. If it wasn’t performance (let’s concede that) and the end of this investigation determines that they were fired for some trivial, but legal, reason…then what? [/quote] As far as I know, you are correct. The actual firings, I don’t think, are the issue. What is at issue is the underlying reasons for why these 7 were fired, and whether there were any laws broken in the process. If I’m an African-American employee, I can be fired by my employer. My employer dismisses me for performance related matters (regardless that I have received superlative performance evaluations). But if other African-American employees are terminated for similar reasons, it creates a pattern of behavior that looks suspicious and could likely mean I was terminated because I was black. It’s not the firing that was illegal, it’s the reason for why I was fired. Of course, I would have to prove that I was fired because I was black. > [@](#): > > Sorry, that’s still my question. “Influencing ongoing investigations” is the job of the AG, so long as that influence, up to and including firing, isn’t criminal. What crime is alleged in this mess? Again, not trying to be difficult. No crime as of yet - but that’s what Congress would like to find out. It doesn’t help deflate the issue that the rationale for why the some of the USAs were let go don’t match written documents that are contradictory, nor that the White House is being difficult with Congress in getting to the bottom of things. It gives the impression that the AG, White House (and others), have something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/97 "2007-03-23T15:15:32Z")
[QUOTE=eponymous] As far as I know, you are correct. The actual firings, I don’t think, are the issue. What is at issue is the underlying reasons for why these 7 were fired, and whether there were any laws broken in the process. If I’m an African-American employee, I can be fired by my employer. My employer dismisses me for performance related matters (regardless that I have received superlative performance evaluations). But if other African-American employees are terminated for similar reasons, it creates a pattern of behavior that looks suspicious and could likely mean I was terminated because I was black. It’s not the firing that was illegal, it’s the reason for why I was fired. Of course, I would have to prove that I was fired because I was black. [/quote] Not following you. In this example, the reason for the firing would make the firing illegal. But even if that’s just a semantical distinction, there is a law that can be cited: It’s illegal for certain businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. Yes, it would have to be proven. But that’s the crime in question, no need to wonder. So, in this situation, what crime are we speculating occurred? What pattern do you think could be established indicative of a violation of law? Let me make something clear: I recognize that “legal” doesn’t necessarily mean “nice” or “statesman-like” or “pick your favorable adjective.” I’m just trying to understand what law we’re attempting to protect here. > [@](#): > > No crime as of yet - but that’s what Congress would like to find out. It doesn’t help deflate the issue that the rationale for why the some of the USAs were let go don’t match written documents that are contradictory, nor that the White House is being difficult with Congress in getting to the bottom of things. It gives the impression that the AG, White House (and others), have something to hide. Again, what crime do you speculate they may be hiding? If you looked in your crystal ball, when this is finally said and done and the worst is determined, how would we summarize this “scandal” in terms of the laws violated? ---
**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 23, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/98 "2007-03-23T16:13:13Z")
Obstruction of Justice. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/99 "2007-03-23T16:18:25Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] Obstruction of Justice. [/QUOTE] How so? Which act constituted obstruction of justice? Are you conceding that the firings themselves were not illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/100 "2007-03-23T16:26:13Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] How so? Which act constituted obstruction of justice? [/QUOTE] The _firings_ may have constituted Obstruction of Justice _if_ the USAs were fired to prevent them from pursuing cases against Republicans _because_ they were Republicans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=6)