Rove may be allowed to testify without being sworn in.

[redqueen]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3356411

Conyers and Sanchez apparently think that just being allowed to question Rove again is enough of a "step forward" to give in to the request that he not testify under oath or with a transcript.

I disagree. I think they should make hay out of the fact that these crooks have been refusing to testify under oath for years... and very loudly proclaim that they are done letting these people get away with hiding from public scrutiny.

And now to call and say as much.


1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437



The person who answered in Conyers' office flatly stated that this was false. They kindly directed me to the Committee website for correct information.

I can't find anywhere on that site that it is flatly stated that Rove will be required to testify under oath.

Here is the full text of the letter. Note the lack of any clarification re: swearing in, after it is mention that Luskin offered to "trade" testimony re: Siegelman *only*, if it were not sworn, and there was no transcript.

I expect that were those requirements important to Conyers and Sanchez, they would have been reiterated after that comment, and not simply labeled an important step forward.

That's a judgment call though of course... thoughts?

[Lasher]

1. What a stupid thing to even consider. n/t

[recoveringdittohed]

2. Do you agree to lie, tell whole lies and nothing but lies - NT

[lisa58]

22. lol!!

[The Magistrate]

3. Not Just No, Ma'am, But Fuck No, No Way In Fucking Hell!

The wretch takes The Question under oath....

[redqueen]

5. The person who answered said this was false.

Directed me to the Committee website as a source, however that website provides no clear statement that he will be required to testify under oath.

I don't believe it is false. The lack of a clear statement re: swearing in is a huge red flag.

[The Magistrate]

11. It Would Be Extraordinary Not To Swear Him In, Ma'am

They might not think it necessary on the Committee site specify the normal usage would be followed.

My apologies for the descent into the vernacular, but you may read it as an expression of the depth of my feelings regarding such a course....

[redqueen]

15. It's the text of the letter that is alarming.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers-Sanchez080616.pdf

After the request to be allowed to testify without being sworn in and with no transcript is mentioned ... there is not even the slightest hint that those requests are unacceptable.


edit: regarding the vernacular, I am happy to see it, frankly. It is past time for all of us to be fed up with this kind of nonsense.

[Cleita]

4. He shouldn't be given special treatment, however, maybe their

reasoning is that at least they get him to testify. How about arresting him instead if he doesn't show up and then making him testify under oath? What are they afraid of?

[redqueen]

6. They never arrest anyone.

In the linked piece posted in LBN, it is lamely thrown out that it's illegal to lie to congress even if you're not under oath.

How many of these crooks have gotten away with lying to congress... so far?

They're counting on stupidity, apathy, and laziness.

[Cleita]

12. I hear them lying on the floor all the time on C-Span and

at the very least presenting propaganda and RW spin on the floor. They should be arrested when ignoring a request or subpoena to testify. Honestly, I so wish we get a big turnover in the House in November bringing in a lot of new blood. It's time these Washington insiders get booted out.

[redqueen]

17. I completely agree. I nearly wish we'd just vote out every incumbent.

Yes, things will be chaotic. However these assholes will not be able to count on gerrymandered districts and party-line "what other choice have you got, sucker?" voting to protect their complacent asses.

[Atman]

10. The bottom line is, it's STILL illegal to lie to Congress, oath or not.

But I agree, absolutely, he should be sworn in. Just because, goddammit! I'm sick of these assholes getting away with everything and everything just because they say "No, I won't do what you want." You or me try that and it's off to Gitmo.

[BrklynLib at work]

7. Why even bother if he is not going to be sworn in?

Just skip it, and assume he would have lied.

[redqueen]

9. For show?

Hey look! We're REALLY getting tough, now!

[Vickers]

8. That's not testifying...that's just sitting around shooting the shit.

BIG difference.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. he doesn't have to be on oath to be indicted for lying to congress

that's been discussed here many times

I don't know what the problem is




US CODE
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(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.

......

my guess here is Section C, subsection 2 is quite applicable in this case

anybody else?

get that fat pig up there, not under oath. maybe he and his lawyer are stupid enough to think he can lie, but I don't think so. he's not going to show up at all

the only remedy is going to be eventual inherent contempt. that'll be quite an interesting show

[redqueen]

14. I'm aware of this... as stated above... how many times have these crooks lied to Congress already?

How many have paid ANY price for it?

[gkhouston]

16. Yes, but if he doesn't take the oath, he doesn't have to worry about

his hand bursting into flames as he lies while touching a Bible. :o

[GregD]

18. I called Conyers' office - she said go to the judiciary site

Said current information is on the House Judiciary web site for latest information but it's not coming up.

Well, the site is back up now and I see nothing that supports Conyers' staff person's directing me to the site.
http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=986

It confirms Luskin's proposal, but nothing about Conyers/Sanchez responding to that proposal one way or another.

[redqueen]

19. I'm tempted to call that "the brush off".

There is nothing that I have found on the site about the requirement that he be sworn in being non-negotiable.

The latest information is that letter... and after it mentions Luskin's request that Rove be allowed to testify without being sworn and without a transcript, there is not even the slightest hint of even an implication that that request is unacceptable.

Text of the letter: http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers-Sanchez080616.pdf

[Cleita]

20. Somebody up thread said the same thing.

Apparently, they are either stonewalling you or maybe the website hasn't been updated with the information. Hmmmm. I wonder which it is.

[lisa58]

21. I'm sick of this shit - get the guy under oath...

...even if you have to wait until the administration is over. The country needs to know how this administration was run and people need to be prosecuted.

[redqueen]

23. I find it pretty shocking that such requests aren't immediately smacked down hard.

Haven't they had enough of that time-wasting by now?

God knows we have!

[springhill]

24. I don't think they really want the truth.........

It's all for show.

[redqueen]

25. It certainly seems that way.

They've been lied to again and again, and... nothing.

[helderheid]

26. What utter BULLSHIT. What makes Rove so goddamned special?

[tom_paine]

27. NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would they do a foolish thing like that unless they WANTED him to get away.

Either cowardice or complicity.

I will be making my calls.

[Blue_In_AK]

28. Rove is not above the law...

...despite what he may think. He should not be given any special privileges that any of the rest of us wouldn't get. A subpoena means you show up, you answer questions truthfully, and if you fail to do so, you get charged with contempt. Enough with these kid gloves. Prosecute the bastard.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Then why bother having him testify at all?

He needs to be under oath.

[redqueen]

30. I hope everyone who agrees he needs to be under oath is calling...

:patriot:

:kick:

[spanone]

31. then it's a farce.

a FUCKING FARCE

[librechik]

32. He's going to lie anyway. I just hate to see his pampered ass

given privileges NO ONE else is entitled to.

[SoCalDem]

33. Don't even BOTHER, then.

Allowing a LIAR to testify, with PERMISSION to lie, is just a waste of time...

[redqueen]

34. "a waste of time..." My thoughts exactly...

I would think those in Congress who are sincere about these things would have figured out by now the necessity of having these lying liars sworn in each and every time.

*sigh*

[BrklynLib at work]

35. a waste of time, and taxpayers' money as well...

[SoCalDem]

36. Channeling Johnny Cochran

"If ya ain't gonna cook his goose,
ya must cut him loose"

[redqueen]

37. Kick for any more calls... getting late in the day.

:kick: