Well, look at the rest of the offered deal. No records can be taken, so if they lied, there is no proof, no subsequent questioning can be made, so if they lied, that’s the end of it, and they cannot be subpoenaed, so if they lied, there is no recourse. Why, exactly, would they be more candid?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Administration/DOJ has already been caught in several lies regarding this matter (there was no politics involved in the firings; there was no White House involvement in the firings). Why should Congress expect them to suddenly start telling the truth now? They need to be under oath, their statements need to be a matter of public record. I don’t really care if it’s live or not (frankly, I could do without hearing the made-for-TV Congressional grandstanding that goes along with every single confirmation hearing, etc.).
Probably they don’t want to be lynched
- very possibly they have some dirt that they will trade
If there is a video of the whole proceding I don’t even care if they take an oath, or make affirmation. If subsequent investigation shows someone lied, gave evasive half-truths or the like the understanding should be that the video will be made public.
Isn’t liying to Congress when you are answering questions in a formal hearing a no-no whether or not you are sworn?
It may be politically embarrasing, but it is not illegal. It is rare that anyone gives testimony before Congress without being sworn in.
From my personal opinion, it is most important that the testimony be under oath to prevent outright lying, which I believe some people in this (or any) administration would be capable of. I would prefer public testimony because this will bring it more to the consciousness of the public - for some people, if it doesn’t happen on television, it is unworthy of notice.
The second-best option would be a private questioning under oath, as long as the transcript of the session is immediately made public with no removal of supposed “state secrets” - would that be the case if the questioning were made in a private session?
I would like to know under what conditions lying while not under oath is illegal. If that is in fact the case, why bother with the oath at all? While there may exist conditions that provide for prosecuting an unsworn lie to Congress, it must be a fairly narrow set of circumstances.
When Congress holds hearings it is for the purposes of finding out how a law is working; whether legislation should be changed or eliminated; or if more legislation is needed. Lying under those circumstances impedes the lawful and necessary function of the Congress and I think it is prohibited by Title 18 of the US code.
As a matter of fact, I do believe that swearing in witnesses in court is really to impress the witness with the solemnity of the proceedings. In fact, lying in court obstructs justice whether or not you are under oath. The whole process depends on being truthful in testifying.
You are talking about people who have never been willing to discuss things rationally before. Why should they start now?
Do you really think Karl Rove or Harriett Miers would trade away any dirt that would seriously damage this Admin, or bring to light the matters of real concern here? They’re a lot of things, but they’re not disloyal.
Those were risks in the Watergate hearings. That does not mean those hearings should not have been conducted, or should have been conducted on the Nixon Administration’s terms.
If “state secrets” are not removed from the transcript, what is the point of conducting the hearing in private?
I was overbroad in my original statement; making a false statement to Congress is illegal, but it is not perjury. The difference is the difficulty in prosecution. If members of the Bush administration make unsworn false statements behind closed doors, without a transcript, it would impossible to prosecute them under the federal law.
If the executive branch is permitted to avoid sworn, public testimony to Congress, it is the equivalent to a constitutional right to a cover-up.
OK, then close it to the public and the press; that’ll take care of the drama and public humiliation. But oath? Transcript? To me, those are (a) non-negotiable, and (b) don’t detract from a rational discussion in any way.
These are public servants. They work for us, not the other way around.
Nope. If these guys had wanted to retain their public pretensions of dignity, they should have handled the firings in a transparent and honest fashion. We voters have a right to know exactly how and why they screwed the pooch here. Second hand information, even from the mouths of esteemed congress critters is not good enough.
It might not be impossible to prosecute but it is sure hard to get a conviction without evidence.
No argument from me here.
As to the objection to public testimony on grounds of possible grandstanding, that’s true of any public hearing. Part of the repertoire of a good trial attorney or any other presenter is acting ability and a flair for dramatization. And if the questioning veers into such things as asking what advice was given to the President, then it’s time to invoke executive privilege and, if necessary, fight it out before a court. It seems to me that to claim blanked privilege for all actions of Presidential staff members unreasonably hinders Congressional oversight of the executive’s performance in administering the laws.
I think that those of you that have been in a court of law would not volunteer to be aggressively questioned.
They know that they can be subpoeaned, so this offer means something.
Probably they reckon that it can be cleaned up quietly rather than lingering on into the next administration.
This offer means nothing whatsoever when you couple it with Bush’s threats to fight the subpoeanas and the obvious difficulty Congress will have to get someone who serves under his pet AG Gonzo to serve them in the first place. They are NOT volunteering to be questioned-they are demanding to heard in private by a select few, and said select few have to promise not to tell or record what they hear.
Shrug