If Congress is serious about getting to the bottom of the Libby business why

[Peregrine Took]

don't they subpoena him, give him immunity and force him to talk?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. shadows

nothing but shadows.
And it scares the dickens out of the leadership. If they took a hard, honest look at what has happened, impeachment would be a fact, not a theory.
therefore, they are timid and afraid of change. Better the abuser you are married to, than to risk separation and freedom again.
the entire Democratic party is like a weak, abused spouse with no vision, no hope, no plan.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. That is a very interesting question.

I wonder if Waxman or Conyers has thought of it yet.

[Peregrine Took]

4. The Dems have to have the balls to force a constitutional crisis.

[snappyturtle]

3. Great question! n/t

[msongs]

5. libby is waiting for a FULL pardon nt

[Peregrine Took]

6. That's ok - they should still subpoena him - he can't take the 5th - as long s

as he gets immunity. That's how they did the Watergate hearings.

[barack4prez]

7. And/or

why didn't Fitzgerald do the same. I suppose that the fact that Libby did testify to the Grand Jury without taking the Fifth had something to do with it--they might have figured that he'd said everything he was going to say.
For that matter, why didn't Fitzgerald seek charges against Rove, Harlow and Armitage, and hold out immunity as an incentive for a deal? Fitzgerald said that he didn't think there was enough evidence, at least as far as Rove.

[Peregrine Took]

9. Fitz is out of the picture. If the Dems are serious - they have to take the lead

right now. The Fitzgerald investigation is over. We have to invoke a constitutional crisis. We want to make these guys come clean - just like they had to do in Watergate.

[CK_John]

8. That is why * did not pardon Libby. He can now still use the 5th, but if he had

been pardoned he would lose the 5th (no longer in danger of prosecution).

IMO, the pardon will take place after the Nov election and before the new Congress takes over (I think Jan 3).

[Peregrine Took]

10. Congress can grant him immunity and that takes the self incrimination issue

off the table. If they give him immunity - he can't take the 5th.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. As long as the appeals are hanging, I suppose he can take the 5th.

Congress can then give him immunity, and at that point the whole thing gets too complex for this li'l ol' non-lawyer's limited ability to parse out legal situations.

[emulatorloo]

11. Nothing can 'force' libby to talk except threat of a prison term (and Bush took care of that)

I don't understand why Libby would stop lying just because Congress asked him to. He is protecting Cheney and that is that.

[Peregrine Took]

12. The issue here is to provoke a confrontation with the Executive. Libby has a

choice of lying or fingering one of bush's people. He can't refuse to testify. The WH will try to invoke Executive Privilege which is a win win situation for the Democrats.

[barack4prez]

17. But he's already testified

at the Grand Jury. He apparently wasn't concerned with perjury then, so why should he be if he says the same thing before Congress?

[old guy]

13. Water boarding? Huh? Did I say that out loud?

[olshak]

14. LOL

I had that EXACT same thought!

[old guy]

15. Like minds

[Peregrine Took]

16. Get serious- you're just taking this conversation off track.

[xkenx]

18. I believe that someone refusing to testify when granted immunity

can be tossed in jail for contempt.

[Peregrine Took]

19. That's right! That's the whole idea!!!

[barack4prez]

20. But why

do you think he'll say anything different to Congress than he's already said to the Grand Jury?

[Peregrine Took]

21. The point is to put him in an impossible position. We know he will try to lie

or weasel out of it - we want to expose him and the administration.

[xkenx]

23. Or lying under oath

[Peregrine Took]

24. If you can prove he's lying under oath you can prosecute him again!