Pedro Picasso lays out the bottom line

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3477376#3477445

Oh my.

Karl Rove again.

redqueen  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-18-08 02:04 PM
Original message

Rove may be allowed to testify without being sworn in.
   
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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?

The primitives nitpick their armpits to bits, arguing about a whole lot of things, coming to no conclusion.

Atman  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-18-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #4

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.

This bonfire's still reasonably new, or ignored by the primitives, and so no one's shown up yet to tell Pedro Picasso--again--that he doesn't know shit about anything.

You know, one wonders why this wasn't important in December 1998.

[Lord Undies]

Maybe Karl Rove should require some members of congress to answer a long list of questions while under oath.  I'm sure Mr. Rove has many questions he would like answered. 

Maybe Karl Rove could point out how congress has a lot of secrets they need to share with the American public too and he will gladly submit to questioning if he and his lawyers get a turn to ask questions too.

Maybe Karl Rove should use FOX News to explain how he has no intention of subjecting himself to the democrats perjury trap and how he cannot see himself being grilled by the likes of the criminal jerks in congress.