PERJURY TRAP

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Steve Benen

PERJURY TRAP....The White House "offer" to the Senate Judiciary Committee was fairly straightforward: if members wanted to talk to WH staffers about the prosecutor purge, the discussions had to be a) private; b) not under oath; and c) without transcripts. It's that last one that never made any sense.

Indeed, the Bush gang never even tried to rationalize it. That is, until today.

The White House organized a conference call this morning with an official who certainly appeared to be Counsel Fred Fielding, who finally shed some light on why the president would make staffers available for private interviews, but only if there was no transcript of their remarks.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth in that regard. The position that the president took and conveyed to the committees and the offer of compromise did not include transcripts. The accommodation was designed to provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony. One of the concomitants of testimony, of course, is transcripts.

"As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth." (emphasis added)

Got that? As Fielding sees it, if there's a written record of what Bush's aides say, senators might have proof if they lie. It's preferable, then, to have no record and simply assume that White House staffers are being honest. And if you disagree with any of this, you prefer "confrontation" to cooperation.

He did not appear to be kidding.

[HereSince1628]

1. Welcome to the world of adversarial relationships.

It's just a very well paid game for the attorneys.

The rest of us, on both sides, really give a damn about the outcome. The attorney's care not so much as long as they do what they can to serve their clients' interests without doing something that would get them disbarred.

[stellanoir]

2. How convenient

Not to worry. . .no one will recall anything anyhoo.

[wryter2000]

3. Yup

I wonder who the reporter's source was. Fielding didn't include him on the conference call, I'm sure.

[nradisic]

4. I don't think so....

My way or the highway is nowhere in the Constitution. Impeach them all.

[gratuitous]

5. And bank robbers hate surveillance cameras for the same reason

"Evidence" is just so liberally biased! Do away with it, and we'll be glad to detail our crimes for you. But if you're gonna remember stuff and write it down, then forget you, man.

Also, considering that it took Karl Rove five trips to Fitzgerald's grand jury before he finally remembered some pertinent facts, I don't think I'd be trusting that White House staffers are being honest. The only reason Rove finally told the truth to the grand jury is because he was tipped off beforehand on his last trip that Fitzgerald had the evidence at last that Rove's memory lapses were criminally convenient. Faced with the prospect that "forgetting" or "misremembering" one more time before the grand jury could result in an indictment, reports say that Rove was finally a little more forthcoming.

No outside questioners, no outside documentation, and no court reporters is tantamount to a declaration that the witness intends to lie at every opportunity.