Bush conjures up tortured defense of executive privilege
By DeWayne Wickham
Tue Apr 3, 8:23 AM ET
George W. Bush isn't the first president to make the case for executive privilege. He just does it badly.
His assertion that he has a right to keep secret the advice he gets from his staff is about as rational as the proverbial person who cuts off his nose to spite his face.
Bush has invoked executive privilege in refusing to allow his political adviser, Karl Rove, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers, to testify under oath before a Senate panel about their involvement in the recent firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Instead, Bush said he'll allow them to be interviewed in private by senators, as long as they are not placed under oath - and no transcript is made of what they say.
Some Republicans have been quick to point out that forcing Rove and Miers to take an oath before they testify is not necessary because lying to Congress with or without it is a crime. But the real sticking point here is Bush's demand that there be no transcription of this unsworn testimony.
Can you see where I'm going with this? If what Bush's people tell the senators is neither sworn nor recorded, there is no good way to test the truthfulness of what they said.
What, no transcript?
LinkHere
Tue Apr 3, 8:23 AM ET
George W. Bush isn't the first president to make the case for executive privilege. He just does it badly.
His assertion that he has a right to keep secret the advice he gets from his staff is about as rational as the proverbial person who cuts off his nose to spite his face.
Bush has invoked executive privilege in refusing to allow his political adviser, Karl Rove, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers, to testify under oath before a Senate panel about their involvement in the recent firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Instead, Bush said he'll allow them to be interviewed in private by senators, as long as they are not placed under oath - and no transcript is made of what they say.
Some Republicans have been quick to point out that forcing Rove and Miers to take an oath before they testify is not necessary because lying to Congress with or without it is a crime. But the real sticking point here is Bush's demand that there be no transcription of this unsworn testimony.
Can you see where I'm going with this? If what Bush's people tell the senators is neither sworn nor recorded, there is no good way to test the truthfulness of what they said.
What, no transcript?
LinkHere
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 7:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home