NBC's Gregory omitted White House preconditions for Rove, Miers interviews
On the March 20 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory reported that "White House counsel Fred Fielding announced that key Bush advisers -- Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers -- will agree to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the firing of the U.S. attorneys, but not under oath, an apparent deal breaker for Democrats." However, Gregory left out other restrictions that Bush has imposed. In addition to insisting that Rove and Miers not be interviewed under oath, Fielding laid out the following demands in a March 20 letter: that interviews be conducted behind closed doors, that they not be televised or transcribed, that no subpoenas be issued following the interviews, and that questions may not concern internal White House communications.
The New York Times reported on March 21:
President Bush and Congress clashed Tuesday over an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors and appeared headed toward a constitutional showdown over demands from Capitol Hill for internal White House documents and testimony from top advisers to the president.
Under growing political pressure, the White House offered to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.
''I don't accept his offer,'' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. ''It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation or to prejudge its outcome.''
The weblog Talking Points Memo posted a copy of the letter Fielding sent to Congress, which laid out the terms noted above, and further stipulated:
Such interviews may cover, and would be limited to, the subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in questions; and (b) communications between the White House and Members of Congress concerning those requests.
Gregory, however, simply reported that the White House insisted that Rove and Miers not be under oath. From the March 20 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
GREGORY: On Capitol Hill, White House counsel Fred Fielding announced that key Bush advisers -- Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers -- will agree to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the firing of the U.S. attorneys, but not under oath, an apparent deal breaker for Democrats.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here.
GREGORY: Democrats cited precedent: more than two dozen Clinton administration advisers who agreed to testify under oath. Fielding insisted in a letter to the committee chairs that interviews along with email communication between officials at Justice and the White House would provide, quote, "a virtually unprecedented window" into administration decision-making.
Are they even aware of how guilty this makes them look?
The guilt I refer to is the possibility that these U.S. Attorney firings may have been meant to interfere with or prevent any Federal investigation or prosecution...
...in which case those who are guilty of such a thing are guilty of Obstruction of Justice.
They don't want to be sworn?
They don't want their answers transcribed?
Do they even know how guilty that makes them look?
yep, as good as admitting they are guilty
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, not answering questions of this sort does NOT make one guilty. In a society such as ours, you're entitled to keep your pie hole shut.
Now, if and when you're served a subpoena, you better show up ready to talk. I recommend you bring your lawyer with you. And hey, plead the fifth all you want.
But none of that makes you guilty of anything.
sorry, no. If you are going to 'offer' to talk then you talk, no condition such as no transcripts allowed, no recordings, behind closed doors. That is the behavior of a guilty person. If you don't want to talk, then you don't.
You might wanna browse the Bill of Rights again sometime soon.
Even these assholes have rights.
That's what everyone needs to remember. Whether it's the ACLU defending Limbaugh, Nazi's or anyone else in need of a defense.
"Even assholes have rights". It should be the next amendment to our constitution.
Thanks a lot Marv. That statement is what makes me proud of us. And these days it's hard to find anything to be proud of.
Thanks for understanding my point.
Don't get me wrong. I look forward to congress subpoena-ing these jerks and getting them in front of cameras and in front of the people, and under lights and under oath. And the jerks will plead the fifth. And that's fine. It'll be on the record.
But this presumption of guilt just because someone takes advantage of their right to remain silent? Personally, I'm not willing to trade one fascist administration for another of a different stripe. I'm sick of this administration taking a grunt on our Constitution. But I'm not willing to sunder the Constitution to nail 'em.
and thanks for not trying to understand mine. I was speaking in political or PR terms. dumbaya's little temper tantrum and his behaving like the kid from the Family Circus and threatening to hold his breath till he turns blue only gives the appearance of guilt.denying that is just silly.
Your words: "as good as admitting their [sic] guilty" and "That is the behavior of a guilty person. If you don't want to talk, then you don't."
It is NOT the behavior of a guilty person to keep his or her mouth shut. Your premise is inherently flawed. It is your right, and often it's the case that it's the best path, to keep your lips zipped. To do so does not make you guilty of anything.
No one has a Right to ignore a subpoena or summons... isn't that what the issue is?
Having answered the subpoena or summons, and appeared at the hearing or other legal proceeding (which again, there is no such a thing as a right to refuse to do so)...
...having appeared, then anyone may invoke their Right not to speak or answer questions.
But the Judge or the Chair or whomever it is that is conducting the legal proceeding, may compel the testimony nevertheless...
...because achieving JUSTICE in these matters is supreme, and in order to do so, the Judge may jail indefinitely, the one who refuses to speak, it being called CONTEMPT to defy the authority of those proceedings...
...because the service of JUSTICE trumps all other things in a Court of Law... and besides, it is truly and often a sure sign of guilt, to refuse to co-operate with a legal proceeding...
As George W. Bush and members of his administration are presently indicating as their intention: To refuse to co-operate with the legal proceeding, by refusing to answer a subpoena to appear...
...which again, no person has any Right to do.
Additionally: Has anyone ever before seen any supposed 'civil servants' as CONTEMPTUOUS of the Law and of Justice and of the American People themselves, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the rest of these extraordinary low-lifes who have seized our Federal Government, by way of fraud and terror, for their own private and financial gain?
I have not... never.
I find it hard to even imagine such CONTEMPT for the Law and Justice and the American People, as is exhibited over and over again by George W. Bush et al...
...and were it not for the proof provided us on a nearly daily basis, I would never have believed such vile persons could have successfully seized the control of the U.S. Federal Government.
No one has a Right to ignore a subpoena or summons... isn't that what the issue is?
Not in the thread you're responding too, no. I raised a subpoena as a possibility, and pointed out that even then, they can take the 5th and see where it gets them.
But the act of not talking to someone, in and of itself, does not make you guilty. THAT was the element of this thread that I disagree with.
And as for whether someone has the right to refuse to answer a summons from Congress... we'll find out. If nothing else, if a subpoena is issued and Bush claims executive privilege so that his staff can avoid appearing before Congress, it'll make for great political fodder and a fascinating historical footnote when it goes to the Supreme Court. Good thing for Bush that he padded that bench with followers.
Dem,
They are as guilty as sin! They know it too! This is why they are so adament about a constitutional showdown with Congress rather than doing the right thing!
If this had been Clinton, these people and their followers would have demanded Clintons head on a platter!
This is absolutely indefensible on the part of the Bush regime!
I wonder though if perhaps the Bush regime is acting the way they are because perhaps they believe they have done no wrong?
Either way, if they want the American people to be happy, they have to go under oath. Period. End of story!
The media on the other hand, well, they are vastly corporate owned, so I can see why they want to keep mum as much as possible and resort to low-end tactics, but the pressure is on them too, to get this one right!
In addition...
The interviewers must agree to wear ear muffs and be blindfolded, completely naked and standing in a pool of clear water five feet deep.
Sounds fair, right?
And they must limit their questions to include only those about Clinton and all the mistakes he made and how the current administration is trying to fix them.
The Democrats' rejection of this good fatih offer is counterproductive to the hard work that government has been doing these past 6 years...or as Jon Stewart said last night, "...building bridges in Alaska to save Terri Schaivo from gay flag burners."
Wes, hard work? hard work?
I wish I had that job. Last year my friend was in a car accident and had metal screws and plates inserted in his arm because the bones were turned into little shards. He has great medical insurance and benefits so he had a lot of time off. He still worked about three times the number of days our Republican House/Senate combined worked in one year.
These people have done nothing. Oh except of course killing american citizens, taking away American's jobs, running up a huge defecit, etc, etc.
good faith offer my ass!
They are guilty as sin.
The funny thing is, Bush is playing this like he still has political capital. He must not have been paying attention last November.
A game of Texas Hold Em? Lets see who blinks first, Bush or the Democrats.
Seems we had something similar to this back in the day. Nixon all over again!! Hum, guess who won that hand?
It wasn't the American people.
the Constitution won, and that I would argue was good for the American people.
I don't think the interview should be broadcasted on TV or recorded at all. From whats being said the interview will be hours of elected officals screaming questions at Rove and Meirs as the two sit and stare into space.
Who wants to watch that?
This is so idiotic. Why don't they have Tony Snowjob just come out and say, "we lied, it was all politically motivated, and we are not the least bit sorry, go scr#w yourselves."
That would actually make a long story short.....if they had the stones to do such a thing. (Tell the truth that is.)
Details, details, details. I mean who really pays attention to official testimony anyway? No one was paying attention when the language allowing the dismissals was slipped into the revised Patriot Act. Why should anyone that takes the MSM at their word need to be bothered with the particulars of the Bush Administration's obstructionism?
Linden,
You have a point. I like to read up on things as it pertains to the goings on in our country, but I doubt I'll bother reading the official transcripts either.
But the whole point is to have them on record! That is how the Dems got Nixon and how the Reps got Clinton.
Little can be done until you speak under oath, legally speaking.
I have to say though, it is aweful funny watching the Bush regime squirm around in their own created excrement!
Actually, nothing would please me more than to see "Bush's Brain" undergo a total meltdown under the "kleig lights." Kinda like that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when they open up the Ark of the Covenant. Say, doesn't Rove look like that German guy who was going after Indy the entire movie?
It's my understanding that the language inserted into the Patriot act didn't make the dismissals possible. As we've heard ad nauseum, political appointees "serve at the pleasure fo the President." They could be dismissed at any time for any reason. (Now, if you're doing it to obstruct justice -- like, say, removing attorneys general that were going after corrupt Republicans and wouldn't stop regardless of what you said -- you might have a little problem.)
The language tucked nicely into the Patriot Act that applies here says that the President can appoint anyone he wants to fill those vacancies he created without approval from the Senate and they can stay in position for four years. (I think that's how it went.) The idea, I guess, was that in the event of a terrorist attack that took out some appointee, that person could be immediately replaced and government could continue to function.
So the President could remove some appointees of his own who were, you know, doing their job too well, and then appoint some people without oversight to go after the other party instead. Or just look the other way on Republican crimes, at least.
Acutally Bitter, They are appointed indefinetly or until replaced by the next President. And the language made it so they don't have ot be comfirmed by anyone. (So the President could appoint his second cousin Jimmy Lee Smith Bush, who droped out of school at age 13 and does heroin.)
So basically its like saying (on a larger scale), the President can appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court and the person does not have to be confirmed by anyone but the President.
I think there is SOME sort of time limit on the appointment -- something like four years. I just don't know how to look that up. (Not like our lazy MSM is helpful in that regard.)
But with Bush's final term up in less than two years, any appointments now are effectively for the rest of his term, whatever that time limit was. And of course it wouldn't be indefinite because the next President could and probably would dismiss all of the attorneys general upon taking office.
But you got the rest right, I think.
I know that Conservatives are immune to irony, but it will be fun to watch. People who cannot seem to find the Separation of Church and State or Right to Privacy in the Constitution will swear up and down that Executive Privilege is in there...somewhere.
The second I read (on the MSNBC screen) that Bush was going to allow "interviews" I knew he meant Rove and Miers would be free to invite Congress over for a spot of tea and buttered scones.
It's just like George Bush to extend his hand...and smack you in the face.
Randy
Here's a couple of questions I've been dying to hear a reporter ask the President:
"We've been told again and again that the US Attorneys serve at the 'pleasure of the President.' Does their dismissal mean that you personally were no longer pleased with the way they carried out their duties? Were you personally involved in their dismissal? If not, then how can you say that they serve at 'your pleasure' if someone else is deciding who stays and who goes?"
That's the usual Bush crap about personal responsibility. "I'm the Decider" means "I decide stuff ... except if having made such a decision gets me in trouble. In which case, someone else decided it, heh, see, and then I'm just the, heh, boss, but I can't keep tabs on everyone in my, uh, uh... what's the word? administration. I just, heh, see, I just, heh, I'm the decider."
Talk about hypocrisy:
With a tip to DailyKos, check out this article about Tony Snow's own criticism of claims of executive privilege:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/snow_swallows_h.html#more
Classic Tony Snow-job
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''
Great link. Snow is a true hypocrite.
It's a different situation, Snow insisted today.
Yeah, it's a different situation: Snow is being paid to lie with our tax dollars instead of money from the private sector.
<>Notice a conspicuous absence on this thread? Could it be that even our resident Bush apologists can't defend his fear of letting these people testify?
<>Maybe if Congress lets Cheney hold their hands while they testify, Bush will give in.
Jail Time for Rove?
He should be in jail for his treason in the Plame case.
What an absurd set of rules. What would prevent Rove from going into that interview and responding to every question with a random line from "Caddyshack"? What could be done about it? You can't subpoena him, there's no record, there's no public viewing, and any commentary about the interview will just be met by Rove saying "I answered the questions, it's not my fault if they didn't like the answers".
What a comically pathetic offer. If Democrats were to accept it, they could be declared legally dead.
But you don't understand. By only allowing a few Senators to be involved, by doing it behind closed doors, by not requiring it to be done under oath, and by demanding that no transcript be written down, and demanding no follow-up testimony or subpoenas, we can "move forward and find the right information."
All this hogwash about people taking an oath to tell the truth, the threat of criminal prosecution if they lie, it's just going to get in the way of the truth coming out.
Keeping things under wraps and in the dark is the only way we can provide the full and complete truth to the American people.
Ah, right...I forgot I woke up inside an Orwell novel today! Thanks for the heads up :)
The BUSH WHITE HOUSE HAS THUMBED ITS NOSE AT THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION FROM THE DAY THOSE OLD MEN APPOINTED Him ("W") C-I-C......(chicken in charge) When he offered Porky and Bess to CHAT with the Judiciary, mind you, not under oath, i said to myself, Self theres a lot of shinola this guys trying to hide. SUBPOENA THEM AND GET IT AS SWORN TRUTH. WE DESERVE TO KNOW HOW THIS COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED BY OUR ERSTWHILE DECIDER!
Porky and Bess....I like that.
You're right. Can it be any more obvious that they are trying to hide something?
When Porky and Bess speak, remember that "it ain't necessarily so."
Rusty, you is my man.
We'd better be careful or Rush will call us wiggers.
Also, ew.
Yes, either that or Gershwin fans.
I didn't realize the ew factor until after posted.
I didn't mean to imply that you or I were not rugged, manly, types.
Just that we were familiar with the words that George G wrote in his opera.
Scratch that, rugged, manly types don't listen to opera.
Scratch that, rugged, manly types don't listen to opera.
That's right! Instead of opera, which is enjoyed only by French sissies and Tom DeLay (really), call it "sweaty violent rockin' action spectacularrrrrrr" in your best monster truck voice.
I think they could have been appointed for 120 days and then need Senate confirmnation, that's all changed. It's also interesting that while newsheads are linking the behavior to Nixon, no one is talking why ALL OF THESE SCANDALS are only coming to light because of Democratic oversite. These things didn't happen last week! Each little nik at the constition, citizens and human rights and accountablility had scabs all over them. Now, the DEM DOCTORS ARE IN. It's interesting how much historical context is ignored by reporters when they talk about his issue. Anyway, Tony Yellowsnow is such a funny gatekeeper, like the one in ghostbusters.hehehe.
C'mon guys, don't your believe our fearless leader when he says it's nothing more than a 'fishing expedition?' Sheesh! How quickly partisans forget.
Cher
It sure makes some swell with pride to know:
Every asshole has a Constitutional privilege! To be protected from unwarranted incursions, [of a personal nature] no matter how delicate said probings might be.
¶And thus bring into the light of day, such feckless soils which had gone un-sniffed, for truths, by keenly nosed news hounds.
†Safely again, Liberty’s impactions are held in place!
¶As puckered-up as those secreted holdings are deeply held inside… By he, the Swaggering Skipper, who’s also puckered grimace, bespoke of an honest purgative…never to rightfully assail!
¶By now, a mal-construed mandate thus, Our Amendments, he’s laid before his closeted gait; To daily trod upon and become the meandered Consitutional…
He never could take.
David Gregory has decided to muffle his integrity in order to keep his job. He must have been told to tow the line and lean left, drop facts and slant his reports. What would David Blum think of this old reporter pal? Disappointed, no doubt. David Gregory, we hardly knew ye! It's never too late to find that moral compass you've set aside.
This is an interesting article: Is Mainstream Media Anti-Gay?
Katy Beekman ~ DiversityInc