Oh, Jeeze, I don't think this is good

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002859.php

what is there to compromise on? And why?

"Specter proposed to allow the aides to be questioned publicly by just a limited number of lawmakers without putting them under oath."

Considering he's a Republican, that's not too surprising.

which thing would we give up?

THATs whats got me concerned

I can't imagine Leahy yielding on the oath or the transcript.

Personally, I'd pass on cameras and perhaps even on the oath, since I think there are other rules beyond being under oath that govern lying, I could be mistaken on that, so double check before you quote me. I want a transcript, however, that one is nonnegotiable. I also want them grilled like a cheese sandwich.

this is it.

then, they can LEGITIMATELY call for impeachment.

Don't worry. No oath, no transcripts...NO DEAL.

AFREAKINMEN!

HE'S the one stonewalling here... not us.

that's worrying me.

If a witness is not under oath, in public and with a transcript, what good is that testimony.

What's to negotiate?

Pat Leahy is a former Prosecutor and a staunch member of the anti-corruption wing of the Senate. he will not accept anything less than under oath with a transcript. They're playing chess. They're building a case, and they're portraying themselves as reasonable and not on a witch hunt. In other words, they're doing it right.

n/t

That should never, ever be a point of consideration when one negotiates!!!

there are other statutes which require truthful testimony.
But you need a record to prove lies.

If they weren't under oath?

no oath required.

Good call... thanks:)

also no oath involved.

in trials, depositions, and other situations, thousands of times a day.

The ONLY reason someone doesn't want to be put under oath is so that they can LIE and not be charged with perjury.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 Prev | Next

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
How Current is This?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

to one another that the White House is to either of them, it really puts a burden on the White House," Schumer said.

No. When that happens, the republic senator is waiting for the right time to stab you in the back.

He's not in a negotiatin' mood.

or am I wrong?

I do know that lying to Congress while under oath is perjury

but a record/transcript is critical. Therefore, must have transcript

and for other reasons must not have constraint on questions.

since Schumer has pulled this kind of thing before. But from Leahy's statements, I don't think this is going away.

if is time to retreat and 'compromise'. DAMN.

I think Schumer's just trying to set things up so the Democrats can say "Hey, we tried to be reasonable." Yesterday, when asked why the White House wouldn't compromise, Snow did say the offer Bushco made (closed door, no oath, no transcript) was the compromise.

anything less is uncivilized.

Compromise is good. Chucky can go back to his baby steps...

No justice, no solution. Lies and evasion will continue as long as it's permitted.

IF they do...they will pay dearly in 2008.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, I'm serious. Thousands of cans of cat food. An unprecidented and pointed public statement. One that humiliate and amuse.

Never miss an opportunity to cave, blink, give up, surrender, give in, or capitulate!

allow notes to be made, kept and available to any future judicial venues. That's as far as I'd be willing to go. And it's a stretch.