# 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:** 6
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/101 "2007-03-23T16:29:28Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] 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. [/QUOTE] Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/102 "2007-03-23T16:30:51Z")
If their performance reviews count, they were doing very good work. I would like to see the people who fired them testify in public., under oath without predetermined questions. They ran a fishing expedition for years on Clinton ,a couple days of questioning should not be protested. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/103 "2007-03-23T16:33:49Z")
I don’t think anyone thinks the firings themselves, per se, were illegal. “The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president” as we’ve all heard _ad nauseam_. But the reasons for the firings may well be illegal. There’s an interesting bit of theater going on with two strangely identical $40,000 expenditures, a yacht and some vice-presidential furniture that seems to be at least tangentially connected to the Duke Cunningham case, for instance, and the word is that Lam was all set to go down that road, which may very well have led directly to Cheney, before the purge. I’m not saying that all of the fired USA’s were fired for unethical/illegal reasons, but at least some were. On top of that, you have apparent lying to Congress from Gonzales, which is a charge that can’t go higher than him, I don’t think, but definitely would be illegal if proved true. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/104 "2007-03-23T16:41:24Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Which act constituted obstruction of justice? [/QUOTE] Well, they fired Lam to prevent her from looking into [Dick Cheney’s contribution to Mitchell Wade’s yacht fund](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house)\*. That seems a tad obstructive of them. \*Sure that claim’s a little speculative, but given the number of different stories the admin’s put out to explain the firing, there surely must be a more interesting **truth** which they are unwilling to state. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/105 "2007-03-23T16:46:47Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Well, they fired Lam to prevent her from looking into [Dick Cheney’s contribution to Mitchell Wade’s yacht fund](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house)\*. That seems a tad obstructive of them. [/QUOTE] Thanks, **Squink** , for providing the link. That’s the Lam case I was talking about in my last post, **Stratocaster**. ---
**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 24, 2007, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/106 "2007-03-24T00:32:48Z")
This just in: [Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff, has agreed to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, his lawyer said in a letter to the committee chairman Friday](http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/us.attorneys.firings/index.html). > [@](#): > > “Mr. Sampson looks forward to answering the committee’s questions,” Bradford Berenson said in a two-paragraph letter. “We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys.” > > Sampson, one of several officials who faced a possible subpoena to testify, will appear voluntarily before the committee at 10 a.m. Thursday. An interesting tidbit from that article: > [@](#): > > Dick Armey, the Republican former House majority leader who now is chairman of the conservative activist “Freedom Works” organization in Washington, said Thursday that President Bush is on “thin ice” in claiming executive privilege. > > He added that it is “hard for me to imagine that Karl Rove has any matters of information that are so important to the nation’s security or its ability to conduct the business of our government that there’s any reason he shouldn’t testify.” Rats? Sinking ship? What next? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/107 "2007-03-24T02:15:19Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] An interesting tidbit from that article: Rats? Sinking ship? What next? [/QUOTE] Dubya’s ultimate victory, of course. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/108 "2007-03-24T16:26:43Z")
I haven’t been following this one closely so I’m not up on all the facts. What little I do know confuses me. I don’t understand why they need to take an oath and testify, because I don’t understand what potential crime has been committed. My understanding is that these AGs serve at will, and can be fired with no cause, that in past administrations this kind of thing has occured albeit with the Clintons it was at the beginning of Clinton’s term not in the middle (and I don’t understand why that makes a difference.) I also kinda sorta agree with the idea of executive privilege in that the Pres is entitled to candid and confidential advice. I say “kinda sorta” because I guess it wouldn’t apply towards planning a crime. So, if they can be fired for whatever reason the Pres decides and no crime has occured, why must they testify at all much less under oath? To me this has the look of a fishing expedition, or trying to set up a perjury trap, or adjust another sensationalist gambit. Does Congress have the right to supboena anybody to testify under oath about whatever they want just because they want to, or does a crime need to be in question first? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/109 "2007-03-24T16:40:59Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I don’t understand why they need to take an oath and testify, because I don’t understand what potential crime has been committed. [/QUOTE] Obstruction of Justice (that’s the _potential_ crime- I’m just relaying info rather than arguing for or against it). [Krauthammer’s piece on why Gonzales must go](http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/174873) and [New York Times Op Ed on possible crimes](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?_r=3&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). > [@](#): > > My understanding is that these AGs serve at will, and can be fired with no cause, that in past administrations this kind of thing has occured albeit with the Clintons it was at the beginning of Clinton’s term not in the middle (and I don’t understand why that makes a difference.) Not just with Clinton: there have only been two involuntary dismissals of US Attys in 25 years (both under Reagan [wikicite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy)). ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/110 "2007-03-24T16:47:27Z")
That Krauthammer piece is a joke, and [The New Republic](http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=91839) does a good job explaining why (excerpted): > [@](#): > > In other words, Krauthammer thinks it is perfectly acceptable for a White House to fire attorneys because they are not following policy priorities that are explicitly intended to aid its own party at the polls. This is a truly extraordinary assertion: That the party in power is entitled to use law enforcement officers to punish the party out of power. Doubtless Krauthammer will defend this moral principle with equal vigor when a Democrat is in the White House… > > So, to recap: a) It’s okay for the president–not just legally, but morally–to fire any and all U.S. attorneys any time he feels they are not adequately pursuing his priorities; b) it’s okay if those priorities include getting more members of his own party elected; and c) the whole thing is a pseudo-scandal until the evidence of explicit obstruction of justice reaches a threshold where it is beyond dispute. > > Thank goodness for moral clarity. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/111 "2007-03-24T16:51:44Z")
Sampiro: Thanks. Those do shed some light on the issue for me. If the attorneys serve at will though why was Gonzalez or anybody else needing to explain why they were fired in the first place? It seems to me they could have just said “none of your business.” If they could, I wonder why they didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/112 "2007-03-24T16:52:16Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I don’t understand why they need to take an oath and testify, because I don’t understand what potential crime has been committed. [/quote] It’s mainly about not believing a word they say otherwise. > [@](#): > > My understanding is that these AGs serve at will, and can be fired with no cause As is true of every federal appointee. But that isn’t the point; the \*reasons \* are the point. It isn’t about the firings violating any law; it’s about the WH’s intention to use them for partisan harassment and election-season point-scoring against the other party’s guys. > [@](#): > > that in past administrations this kind of thing has occured albeit with the Clintons it was at the beginning of Clinton’s term not in the middle (and I don’t understand why that makes a difference.) Any change in party results in a change of appointees, usually en masse, just like Bush did at the start of his administration. It makes a difference because (A) you don’t hear that from the excusers, and (B) the reasons do matter. It’s about the reasons, ya know. And the lying about them we already know about. > [@](#): > > [So, if they can be fired for whatever reason the Pres decides and no crime has occured, why must they testify at all much less under oath? You don’t know that no crime has occurred, or that any noncriminal violation of the public trust has occurred. That’s what investigations are for. > [@](#): > > To me this has the look of a fishing expedition, or trying to set up a perjury trap, or adjust another sensationalist gambit. For someone who hasn’t paid attention except to supportive commentators, it might well look that way. To someone aware of the evidence that has already come out, and the lies and stonewallings and daily shiftings of excuses that have been offered instead of actual testimony, um, no it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Does Congress have the right to supboena anybody to testify under oath about whatever they want just because they want to, or does a crime need to be in question first? The first. It does take a majority vote of a committee to approve the issuance of subpoenas, but that’s already taken place. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/113 "2007-03-24T17:02:46Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] If the attorneys serve at will though why was Gonzalez or anybody else needing to explain why they were fired in the first place? [/QUOTE] Nixon had every right under the law to use the FBI and IRS to harass his political enemies, too, by that reasoning. Was “none of your business” an adequate response to questions about it? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/114 "2007-03-24T17:03:00Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] If the attorneys serve at will though why was Gonzalez or anybody else needing to explain why they were fired in the first place? It seems to me they could have just said “none of your business.” If they could, I wonder why they didn’t? [/QUOTE] [From MediaMatters](http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009): > [@](#): > > 1. Since the president has the authority to fire any or all U.S. attorneys, the administration’s only problem is a failure to be “forthcoming” > > On the March 15 broadcast of ABC’s World News, legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg said, “Of course, the president can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses” and suggested the only “problem for the White House … and the Justice Department” is that “the White House hasn’t been forthcoming with how this whole plan” to dismiss specific U.S. attorneys “began.” But the president’s authority to fire U.S. attorneys per se is not in question, and possible misconduct goes beyond simply a failure on the part of the administration to be “forthcoming.” For example, regarding the alleged pressure on former New Mexico U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) to expedite a corruption investigation of state Democrats, according to the Washington Post, “Legal experts say it violates congressional ethics rules for a senator or House member to communicate with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation.” > > Second, Gonzales and McNulty may have given false testimony to Congress in January. According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Department of Justice (DOJ) “officials have testified before Congress that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys.” CREW alleged that Sampson “knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress” when those officials testified before Congress about the attorneys’ dismissals, which CREW claims could violate federal prohibitions against lying to Congress. Essentially, the dismissal of so many U.S. attorneys before their terms were over was so unusual, so unprecedented, that the administration knew some scrutiny would come on that decision. The fact that they either lied about the reason (“poor performance”) or were evasive about the reasons, even to the U.S. attorneys in question, meant that the firees felt obliged to take other circumstances around their dismissal (phone calls or communication that appeared pressuring, intimidating, or otherwise unethical) public. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/115 "2007-03-24T17:05:34Z")
Archiveguy: Thank you for the answers. I think I understand now. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/116 "2007-03-24T17:32:35Z")
Furthermore, it appears one purpose of the purge was to [facilitate suppression of Dem votes in key states in 2008.](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm) ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/117 "2007-03-24T17:42:45Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Archiveguy: Thank you for the answers. I think I understand now. [/QUOTE] Always happy to help (especially if it gives me an excuse to put off working…) 🙂 : posting from the office on the weekend : ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/118 "2007-03-26T20:25:47Z")
Of course, it **is** a crime to mislead Congress even if you’re not under oath – as [Stephen Griles](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal) just found out. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2007, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/119 "2007-03-26T20:40:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] – as [Stephen Griles](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal) just found out. [/QUOTE] You got a little overexcited there and posted the wrong link, **BrainGlutton**. I think this is what you wanted: [Another Bush #2 Goes Down](http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/23/ap3548022.html) > [@](#): > > Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles on Friday became the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, pleading guilty to obstructing justice by lying to a Senate committee. > > The former No. 2 official in the Interior Department admitted in federal court that he lied to investigators about his relationship with convicted lobbyist Abramoff, who repeatedly sought Griles’ intervention at Interior on behalf of Indian tribal clients. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754/120 "2007-03-26T20:47:58Z")
[Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse to answer Senate questions](http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/NEWS08/70326027) > [@](#): > > Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said today. > > “The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd. > … > Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ senior counsel and White House liaison,… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/they-will-testify-but-not-under-oath/396754.md?page=7)