The Post’s attempt at a compromise

March 22, 2007

The Washington Post’s editorial board argues today that the White House and congressional Dems have “drawn deep lines in the sand” over how to proceed with the purge scandal investigation. The WaPo graciously acknowledges that lawmakers have legitimate questions — “[G]iven the administration’s incorrect and inadequate answers to the Senate thus far, Congress is right to pursue those questions” — but seems sympathetic to the Bush gang’s reluctance to cooperate.

[A] two-step process could pull both sides back from the brink. First, Mr. Gonzales and other Justice Department officials should testify about their decisions to remove the ousted eight. If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don’t have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime. But their testimony must be as open as possible and should without question be transcribed.

A few thoughts. First, as Jonathan Chait noted, the Post seems to approach the issue with a certain unstated assumption: that Rove and Miers will not tell the truth. I guess the White House’s reputation has reached this point.

Second, if one of the principal problems in this scandal is the fact that administration officials have been lying about what transpired, why is it unreasonable to ask witnesses to be sworn in? What is it about “So help me God” that causes so much grief?

And third, since perjury is a more serious crime than lying to Congress, wouldn’t swearing the witnesses in help ensure that lawmakers will get the truth?

I’m obviously not a part of the negotiations, if there are negotiations, but I’d be more concerned about putting witnesses under oath than the “openness” of their testimony.

There are five elements to consider:

1. Getting testimony from Rove, Miers, and other White House officials;

2. Considering that testimony in an open, public hearing;

3. Putting the witnesses under oath;

4. Having an official record (transcript) of the testimony;

5. Receiving internal White House communications about the purge.

At this point, congressional Dems want all five, while the White House is willing to yield on the first one. The Post editorial board wants Dems to give in on #3, without addressing #5.

This seems highly unlikely. I can imagine a scenario in which Dems compromise on #2 — under-oath testimony, with documents and transcripts, in private — but even that would be an overly-generous concession.

Giving up on swearing witnesses in seems like a non-starter.

It really can’t be emphasized enough — Congress (and not just Democrats, of course, but I’ve given up on the Reptiles showing any instinct for good governance) should point out that the only reason for the White house to place these condition — as even the Post tacitly admits — is if they plan on lying.

The line should be, “Misleading testimony from this White house may have been good enough for the Republican Congress, but it isn’t good enough for us.”

  • Personally, I wouldn’t sweat the oath. I think the transcript is where Bush will balk. If they lie* they’ll be caught, and the Republicans will pay the price yet again whether or not there’s ever a conviction in a court.

    The internal communications will also be fought, for the same exact reason.

    Go Dems. The criminals are on the ropes, do not let us down.

    Earn your votes.

    * ROFLMAO

  • I don’t actually think “we know you’re lying” is correct. That’s not at all what I think WaPo’s saying. They are saying lying to congress is already a crime, so being under oath isn’t necessary.

    That said, however, Rove and Miers should DEFINITELY testify, and it should be a public hearing.

  • i’m less concerned about the oath than i am about testifying in public. i’m sick and tired of these closed door meetings, for one, and i think you can tell a lot about someone’s answers by watching and listening to them speak. one final thought – there comes a time when enough is enough. the democrats are going to have to choose something to stand and fight on sooner or later and this is as good as the next, and better than some. so, my feeling is stand your ground and don’t give anything away on this one.

  • Actually, what is it about “I swear to tell the truth” that’s so much of a problem.

  • Is the White House willing to yield on the first element? Testimony is generally considered to be a sworn statement. The White House seems to be only willing to have Miers, Rove, et al give “interviews”. Huge difference.

    Something else I haven’t seen discussed too much is the legitimacy of the whole “Executive Privilege” argument. If one branch is empowered to conduct oversight, why should the other branch be allowed to not comply based upon an exception that isn’t in the Constitution? For an Administration that otherwise wishes to pretend that it supports a very limited “Strict Construction” view of the Constituion – hear that, citizens of the District of Columbia? – it certainly is trying to exempt itself from Constitional norms and processes via theories that run counter to the spirit of checks and balances in the Constution, as well as relying on a theory that doesn’t appear in the Constitution at all. It is another example of the Bush Administration’s reliance upon “Do as we say, not as we do”.

  • How are _both_ sides looking bad in this? Exactly what has Congress done that qualifies? Screw the WaPo, Congress stick to your Guns!

  • For me, the only compromise that is reasonable is to have Rove and Miers volunteer to testify under oath, to remove the taint that they’re being forced to do so by Congress. But the WaPo’s compromise is absurd and is typical of their “Take things from both sides” centrism. Sometimes, one side is entirely right and the other is wrong, and in this case, it’s absurd to not have Rove and Miers under oath. Hell, if we’re compelling them to tell the truth anyway, why not get it under oath?

    Particularly as the Whitehouse’s “offer” was nothing but a stupid insult, designed to muddy the waters and help get to a better position. They knew it wouldn’t be accepted. They just wanted to draw a ridiculous line in the sand as a desperate device to move the negotiating line further in their direction; in the hopes that the “centrists” would step in and force the Dems to accept a worse position. They weren’t acting in good faith at all. They knew the “no transcripts” thing was a deal breaker, as the WaPo seems to be acknowledging. But they’re acting as if it’s a compromise for the Whitehouse to lose that absurd provision in exchange for the Dems losing an important one. And that’s exactly what the Whitehouse was trying to do. For as much as the Bushies are playing with a bad hand, they’re still playing it for all they’ve got.

  • Here’s a compromise: Rove and Miers get to testify, not under oath, but with a transcript, if and only if they agree that they weill admit that Rove was involved in a generalized attempt to turn the Department of Justice into an ideological enforcement branch of the Republican Party, and that he is going to resign for the good of the country. As part of the generous nature of this compromise, he wouldn’t have to plead guilty to any crime, as long as he promises to have nothing more to do with politics.

  • A really clever Committe Chairman would waive the requirement on ‘sworn testimony’ as long as the testimony was public, and would then ask, as his first question, “Why did you have a problem testifying under oath? Does this mean you feel you have a right to lie to us?”

  • Since when is it the WaPo’s business to work out deals between Congress and the White House? Unless they’re getting paid under the table by BushCo to……

    Oh, wait.

  • ok, ok, in the interest of redicing the partisanship, we’ll do things the BushCo way. Rove can be interviewed in private.

    at Guantanamo, on a waterboard.

    the BushCo way. the way Gonzales believes is permissible for suspected enemies of the state.

  • If they want private interviews, no transcripts and no swearing in, why don’t we fly them to to a prison in Syria or Egypt and have Omar with his blowtorch, power drill and pair of pliers do the questioning? It’s what these guys have allowed to happen to others. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

  • Rove and Miers don’t need to swear an oath. They are both Christians, so lying would be breaking the ninth commandment (“thou shalt not bear false witness”), and neither Rove nor Miers would *ever* do that, LOL.

    • Comments are closed.