View Full Version : Can one of you conservatives....
Please explain to me why it is not kosher to have Rove and bunch testify under oath or at least with a transcript? I am not being a dick, I just can't find much from the other side of the aisle about why there shouldn't be a transcript, other than what Bush has been saying ("it's a reasonable proposal"). I don't see it that way. I think it is reasonable to have a convo on the record.
Please explain to me why it is not kosher to have Rove and bunch testify under oath or at least with a transcript? I am not being a dick, I just can't find much from the other side of the aisle about why there shouldn't be a transcript, other than what Bush has been saying ("it's a reasonable proposal"). I don't see it that way. I think it is reasonable to have a convo on the record.
Specter and Durbin were on Meet the Press yesterday talking about this. Not public, not under oath, and no transcript.
Sounds great.
Specter and Durbin were on Meet the Press yesterday talking about this. Not public, not under oath, and no transcript.
Sounds great.
Were they saying that it is a good thing? if so, why?
Were they saying that it is a good thing? if so, why?
No, they were both rather opposed to it. Basically, what's the use?
The under oath thing doesn't really matter, because if you lie to Congress, it's 5 years for perjury no matter what.
Basically, they wanted it public or with a transcript. Mainly so that it could be recorded (and these were Specter's thoughts, I believe) because every congressperson could walk out of there with a different idea of what happened if there were no records, i.e., misunderstanding, misinterpreting, forgetting, etc.
No, they were both rather opposed to it. Basically, what's the use?
The under oath thing doesn't really matter, because if you lie to Congress, it's 5 years for perjury no matter what.
Basically, they wanted it public or with a transcript. Mainly so that it could be recorded (and these were Specter's thoughts, I believe) because every congressperson could walk out of there with a different idea of what happened if there were no records, i.e., misunderstanding, misinterpreting, forgetting, etc.
Yes, I can't see a good reason not to have a transcript, which is why I asked for a clear reason. I tend to read sites I agree with so I thought here would eb a good resource. I checked with Faux News and they barely mention it (surprise surprise), neither does Free Republic. Plus I almost vomited reading what those people had to say about John and Elizabeth Edwards.
Yes, I can't see a good reason not to have a transcript, which is why I asked for a clear reason. I tend to read sites I agree with so I thought here would eb a good resource. I checked with Faux News and they barely mention it (surprise surprise), neither does Free Republic. Plus I almost vomited reading what those people had to say about John and Elizabeth Edwards.
Yeah, I don't get it. Either there's something they're trying to hide, or they're playing games with the information. And the game I would suspect is that there's really truly nothing shady going on, they're dragging their feet so that the Dems will make a big stink out of it, overreact, and then look like morons when it comes to pass that they spoke under oath or however, and there's nothing there.
But does that really sound like something Rove and company would dream up?
Yeah, I don't get it. Either there's something they're trying to hide, or they're playing games with the information. And the game I would suspect is that there's really truly nothing shady going on, they're dragging their feet so that the Dems will make a big stink out of it, overreact, and then look like morons when it comes to pass that they spoke under oath or however, and there's nothing there.
But does that really sound like something Rove and company would dream up?
Yeah, I always feel like the Dems are walking right into an ambush with these guys. This may be the case. I guess I really don't see this as very frivolous though. It seems that Bush and company are not really responsible, but Gonzalez is and needs to go. the fact that we allowed Bush's personal attorney to be AG is pretty sickening, and this is what you get.
Yeah, I always feel like the Dems are walking right into an ambush with these guys. This may be the case. I guess I really don't see this as very frivolous though. It seems that Bush and company are not really responsible, but Gonzalez is and needs to go. the fact that we allowed Bush's personal attorney to be AG is pretty sickening, and this is what you get.
To me, from the little bit that I know, it's hard to say if this stops with AG or if it goes higher.
2 of the fired attorneys were both on MTP yesterday as well. They're stories about the situation were pretty intriguing.
To me, from the little bit that I know, it's hard to say if this stops with AG or if it goes higher.
2 of the fired attorneys were both on MTP yesterday as well. They're stories about the situation were pretty intriguing.
yes, I saw that. The thing I see though, is an egregious failure to uphold the law and be truthful about it by our AG. He is the damn AG! If it goes higher, I can learn to deal with that.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.