Senators negotiating Rove testimony

[sabra]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - Democrats, armed with subpoenas for President Bush's political guru Karl Rove and other top aides, are pressing the White House to allow the advisers to answer questions under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors.

The brokering has already begun. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania floated a compromise with Bush's counsel Fred Fielding, even as both sides publicly ratcheted up the standoff. The White House said Fielding would pass the proposal to Bush.

Bush's counsel discussed the dispute Friday in a meeting at the Capitol with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a close White House ally.

The two did delve into specific proposals for Bush's aides to testify, but Cornyn said he urged Fielding to release as much information related to the prosecutor firings as possible, warning that he wanted "no surprises" to emerge.

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,' " Cornyn said.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17758413/

[Iwasthere]

1. negotiating ' nesmotiating ...

In public, with trancripts, and under oath. PERIOD!

[MGKrebs]

16. I would probably be willing to let them keep this off of TV

if it meant getting everything else.

It's just something that should not be essential to the process if that's all we have to give up to get the deal done.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Why? Haven't you had enough secret bullshit?

What is the national security issue here? Answer: there is none. Absent a national security issue, all aspects of government must be out in the open where we can inspect them.

[MGKrebs]

29. It wouldn't be secret. Just not on TV.

Surely our legislature can conduct a legitmate hearing without TV cameras. They do allow press and visitors after all. It's just no that much to give up.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I do not think that is what they are asking for.

I could be wrong, but I believe they mean behind closed doors, transcript only, not: no tv cameras, open to the public.

But I still object. Every aspect of our government that does not have a very good reason for not being out in the open accessible to the public should be out in the open. It is our government, not theirs, and we cannot trust our representatives if we cannot see what they are doing. I cannot make it to the courtroom, to the hearing chambers, to the viewing gallery of the legislature, but I sure as heck can make it to the tv or the internet if I am interested. Democracy requires openness. Secrecy breeds corruption.

[MGKrebs]

49. I guess I just see another setup- a reason to criticise Dems.

If we ask- no DEMAND- more than we need, and maybe more than we are likely to get, we set ourselves up for disappointment. So, if we get the testimony under oath, in public, but not on TV, we will have evrything we need to pursue the matters at hand, but many here will again claim that the Dem leadership failed and that they caved, all over something that should not even be necessary in the first place... better yes, but not necessary.

If the WH were to agree to everything, some here would complain because the Dem leadership didn't hold the hearings in some neutral territory or something.

[TankLV]

92. there's your problem right there - it's not "more than we need" - it's the MIMINUM that is NECESSARY

stop spreading the REPUKE SPIN!

[MGKrebs]

93. Our government is more fragile than I had thought

if TV is necessary for proper proceedings.

Do you realize who is on the Judiciary committee?
Joe Biden.
Orrin Hatch.

Those two guys alone can be guaranteed to turn TV hearings into a circus.

I'll take TV anyway if we can get it, but it is not necessary, except for sofa-activists.

[hang a left]

31. Like the official unedited transcripts available on government websites.

Coryn and Spector puke puke.

[sobanos]

33. I would only agree to that IF.............

...... ALL transcripts of testimony are made available to the public.

[bilgewaterbill]

82. Who reads transcripts? This needs to be televised!

If those bastiges get to testify without being televised, the impact of them in front of an inquisition is lost.

[MGKrebs]

102. If yuo just want to embarrass Rove, track him down and

throw a pie in his face.

[drm604]

103. I hear what you're saying

but the right sound-bites could be crucial for public opinion. The White house knows this.

[Kikosexy2]

42. IT WHAT I...

BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT...NO COMPROMISES, NEGOTIATIONS, DEALS, PERIOD!!...SUBPOENA NOW...NO DELAYS!...IT'S NOW OR NEVER!...

[Robb]

2. You know, Dem leaders better realize

...any kind of "compromise" is really going to piss off their constituents.

[quiet.american]

3. Your're right, but it seems to be only the GOP'ers still trying to "take what they can get."

Pathetic.

[VegasWolf]

5. Exactly, the Dems won't have any constituency if they fold. nt

[underpants]

6. I wouldn't worry much Bush has yet to NOT get played by anyone

Musharaf
alSadr
Sistani
Chirac
hell even Bin Laden played him like a drum (I am sad to say)

Bush and Cheney, for all the talk of their wealth from wiley business dealings, have gotten play at every turn. The American people are the only ones who don't know it.

[Hardrada]

89. And one Mr. Putin.

[cali]

19. I have complete faith in

Leahy doing the right thing. And if they can get Rove under oath, either in private or public, that's all I care about.

I'm not in the least pissed off at Leahy, and frankly I don't think too many of his other constituents are either. We love him up here in Vermont.

[ends_dont_justify]

100. Agreed

We didn't vote compromisingly. Plenty of people went through some of the most inconveniance just to vote dem in 2006. We had to battle just to make sure the fake recount in montana didn't ruin the chance to out conrad burns. We, the american people, have done a LOT for the dems in recent times....I'd hate for them to take it as a free meal ticket and run.

[fasttense]

4. Please, please, please let us poor helpless senators have something. n/t

[liberal N proud]

7. Negotiating with Rove is negotiating with a terrorist

[GeorgeGist]

8. Negotiating with terrorists?

The Democrats don't really expect the WH to give up it's WMDs without a fight, do they?

[cassiepriam]

12. Yep, Negotiating with sociopaths is a waste of time. Repugs will lie and cheat no matter what.

[KansDem]

9. Deal? DEAL??? You Dems better think long and hard about this...

Do you remember the "deal" the Repubs gave President Clinton?
Do you remember the "deal" you got when you asked the Repub Congress for a room to hold hearings?

Here's the "deal"...
The Dems issue subpoenas; the Repubs give testimony under oath and before a live camera.

THAT's the "deal." Period!

[Iwasthere]

13. Spector and * together * with one of his famous finger shots

Negotiate this Spector, asshole!

[Fovea]

17. BING BING BING

We have a Winner!

[driver8]

18. Amen, KansDem...Amen!

There should be no deal and no negotiating.

Issue and serve the subpoenas.

If KKKarl and Co. decide not to show, issue warrants.

This is bullshit. If Congress backs down now, this country is screwed. Bush will have proven that he is "the little dictator" and can do whatever he wants.

This shit has to stop NOW!!!

[caledesi]

38. I AGREE D8! Isn't it ironic that * does a presser to give the

WH "generous offer" BEFORE they were subpoenaed. Like they're in charge....NOT!

What ever happened to St. Reagan's 'trust, then verify?' How the hell do you verify when you have NO transcripts?

They are still trying to play 'trust us' No, we don't. Not after the lies!

edit: spelling

[rusty charly]

39. exactly

who's the majority here? act like it. did the pukes give ANY deals? ever?

[caledesi]

41. Good point! Clinton! nt

[Beetwasher]

10. This Story Is BULLSHIT! It's Only GOP Senators

The Dems are NOT negotiating and they are the one's that matter.

[MGKrebs]

14. I disagree.

It is the Repubs who will be able to bring pressure to bear on Bush. If they abandon him, he is truly lost, and if he defies them on this, they just might abandon him.

[cassiepriam]

11. Guess I will be "negotiating" the next time I go the voting booth.

[louis-t]

15. The only "compromise" I will accept?

The true definition of executive privelage. Conversations between stupidface and his advisors can remain off limits. Everything else is fair game. Under oath, transcripts on every one of them.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. No.

"Conversations between stupidface and his advisors can remain off limits."

Not if there's credible evidence they're hiding crimes. ExPriv doesn't override the need to expose "high crimes & misdemeanors."

[louis-t]

95. Ahaaa! Thanks.

[SutaUvaca]

20. Negotiating?!?

We don't need that weasel Spector negotiating nuttin.
This is not a compromise issue.

Slap those subpoenas in their sweaty little hands, to hell with compromises.

And Cornyn want "no surprises"! Yeah right. He's just warning them to make damn sure the really bad stuff is buried deep.

[Straight Shooter]

21. Under oath, with a transcript provided for the public. Anything less is unacceptable.

Clinton's aides testified under oath. Rule of law, bush, not the rule of man. Rule of law.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Under oath in public. There is no secrecy issue here.

Government must be open and public or it is corrupt and rotten. Is there a national security issue regarding the firing of US AGs? I think not.

[sobanos]

30. I think that a compromise CAN be reached here...........

........ but these people MUST testify under oath and their testimony must be recorded and available to the public.

The only thing to negotiate here is the "parameters" with regard to questions asked.

For example--- congress could agree to be certain to limit questions to THIS issue and ONLY this issue.

That way, the white house has no excuses.

National security is not at stake, and the questioning won't venture into other areas (i.e. warrantless wiretapping, etc.).

These other issues are important, but they can wait.

[ljm2002]

52. No! Do not give them any control over the parameters of the questioning!

If they do not want to answer a question on the grounds of privileged communication, let them assert it on a question by question basis.

I DO NOT want my representatives giving the White House any control over the proceedings.

The ONLY acceptable compromise would be to not televise the proceedings (although I would prefer that they do televise them). But, do not allow these vermin to dictate any other terms, including: all members of the committee present; press and public present at the proceedings; all testimony under oath; committee members asking any questions they deem necessary.

[Pharaoh]

67. Televise it!

If you have nothing to hide! They forced Clinton to be Televised over a blow job for Christs sake! Fuck Them!

[Pharaoh]

26. The Only Reason

someone would not want to testify under oath is because they plan on lying, how fucking obvious is that and why isn't the whole country up in arms? When Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath to the 911 commission that should of started Impeachment IMHO ..............We have been living in the Twilight Zone ever since.

[sobanos]

36. EXACTLY!!!

I don't understand the deafening silence on this simple fact.

[HuffleClaw]

80. good point

i've never understood how they got away with that.

[NJCher]

85. Schumer needs to say that on TV

The Only Reason...someone would not want to testify under oath is because they plan on lying, how fucking obvious is that

I'd email your post to him now but his contact form doesn't even have this subject on its dropdown menu. Furthermore, it asks for where the sender is from and the sender needs to be from NY.

Do we have any NY'ers with a fax machine who would be willing to put their name on a letter asking Schumer to make this point? I'll write the letter if you'll fax it.

This needs to be said--pretty much just like Pharoah said it. PM me if you're a NY-er with a fax machine.



Cher

[Semi_subversive]

22. Have Senators Spector and Cornhole forgotten

they aren't calling the shots any longer?

[kcass1954]

53. Maybe Barbara Boxer could straighten them out like she did Inhofe. n/t

[reality based]

24. Negotiating with two disreputable Republicon Senators-

I suggest they refer to Senator Boxer's comments yesterday: "Elections have consequences." They're talking to the wrong people if they want to "negotiate." On the other hand, I think the fire in Senator Leahy indicates that they might be wasting their time talking to him. Maybe if they arrested the person(s) who mailed him the anthrax they could get a hearing.

[meldroc]

27. I don't think any settlement will happen without Rove going under oath

The Democrats have made it clear they will not accept a compromise that doesn't put Rove in the spotlights under oath, with transcripts, with the cameras running so everyone can watch.

So I suspect the negotiations are about what questions are going to be asked - what subjects are going to be talked about at the hearing. If a straight subpoena goes through, that means the Congressmen at the hearing can drag Rove before them and ask them whatever questions they want, about anything they want, and Rove has to answer all of them (except when he pleads the Fifth.)

The negotiations are probably where Bush says "OK, you can have him under oath, but you can't talk about Rove's role." That's where Leahy says "Unacceptable - we're going to ask Rove about his role. We'll agree not to ask this question that would require Rove to plead the Fifth." (but ask him a bunch of other questions that build a story that makes his role obvious without having to directly ask him if he committed this crime...)

With the subpoenas, Leahy has Bush's nuts in a vise. They're not going to give up much.

[hang a left]

37. Be still my heart

"The Democrats have made it clear they will not accept a compromise that doesn't put Rove in the spotlights under oath, with transcripts, with the cameras running so everyone can watch."

[dkofos]

28. WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. Well said!

Bush can't hide

[Dukkha]

32. Enough with the fucking cowardly Lying already!

Put that piece of shit scumbag Rove on the stand and make him, for the first time in his slimy life, tell the truth! Stop being a weasle and trying to cut & run.

[PATRICK]

34. Like a hostage situation

First you get out anything they are willing to let go to stave off the end. Then it makes it easier to do the job and chip away to get everything. Bush has no good choices which is why the "compromises" are taunting him with a death of a thousand pieces of evidence or full cooperation.

[montanacowboy]

40. TAKE NO FRIGGIN PRISONERS

NO SURRENDER - OF NOTHING...NOTHING

FUCK THAT SLIMBBALL SPECTER - REMEMBER HE GOT OFF IRA EINHORN, THAT SCUMBAG MURDERER AND LET HIM GET AWAY FROM THE COUNTRY FOR DECADES

THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH THE BUSHIES - LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT

HEY DEMS, I THINK ITS TIME TO OPEN YOUR POWDER BAG DON'T YOU?

[npincus]

43. "negotiating"? Talk to the hand, Mr. Fields.

[warren pease]

44. So can I negotiate too?

If I ever get subpoenaed, does this mean that I don't necessarily have to comply with the terms of the subpoena, but that I can just work out the best deal I can get? Would this establish a legal precedent enabling all prospective witnesses or defendants to weasel out of what used to be an absolute requirement? And they don't even issue a warrant if I bargain my way out of that as well? What a great country!

Hell, if it applies to KKKarl, it must apply to me, too. And if it doesn't, why the hell not?


wp

[Frank Cannon]

58. Exactly.

God forbid it should happen, but if I'm ever subpoenaed, I fully intend to exercise my Rovian right to flip the legal system off. I'll testify when and IF I want to, and I sure as heck won't testify under oath. That kind of thing's for suckers.

This is all such a freaking joke.

[ends_dont_justify]

101. I say anyone subpoenad, if the dems negotiate and rove refuses to go under oath

Should protest by doing the exact same thing in mass numbers. We should show them by example, that they lead us by example. If the laws don't exist, why do we follow them? We should make an example of this country by doing what our higher ups do. With enough people, changes will be made...maybe then the dems will finally see the error of their spineless ways and the repugs will think twice about holding media circuses over breaking the law where everyone can see it.

[knight_of_the_star]

45. I doubt the Dems will make deals on this

It looks like Specter's the one doing the deal-making, not anyone on our side of the aisle.

[tblue]

46. What they oughta do is subpeona * himself under oath, and then negotiate 'settling' for R*ve, etc.

[peacetalksforall]

47. Everytime we refer to them as the government, we confiscate our

rights. We are the government - of, by, for the people - and we elected (tried to) our representatibes to do the right thing.

The right thing is SUBPOENAS IF if they say they won't testify UNDER OATH and before us in some form or another, but with transcripts for all time. The FORM and PLACE of a public hearing is the only thing negotiable.

THEY CANNOT GET AWAY WITH DICTATING TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN ONLY 30% (+ or -) OF THE PEOPLE ARE BEHIND THEM.

THEY ARE OUR EMPLOYEES - NOT OUR DICTATORS OR KING IN A COURT WITH ROVE and team kicking we serfs with whips.

[Virginia Dare]

48. So the White House made an offer take it or leave it..

and the Democrats said "okay, we leave it". So now, they're "negotiating" again. It will be interesting to see what they come up with now. They're really screwed this time, maybe it's starting to dawn on them.

[thereismore]

50. everything is negotiable, except this: UNDER OATH. nt

[Oreo]

54. Specter's offer just leaked

Rove and Miers will testify... behind closed doors and not under oath with no transcriptions
and to sweeten the deal... the people interviewing him have to wear blindfolds and earmuffs

:sarcasm:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. MR Specter what are YOU trying to hide?

[annabanana]

64. This, I expect ;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3171312

[SpunkMonkey]

57. Agreed -- Thre's nothing to compromise here!

Who's involved in the negotiation? Who's offices can we call to demand the testimony be open, on the record and UNDER OATH? Did I miss something here?

[Handsome Pete]

59. nOOb question

I've been lurking here for about 18 months now, and I gotta tell ya, I love reading your thoughts.

</end sucking up> Let's say Rove gets subpoenaed (pleasepleaseplease) and refuses to testify (it could happen). The whole thing goes all the way to the the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS decides against Rove. My question is... does Turd-blossom go to jail for refusing to testify before Congress?

I'm just afraid that the White House wants the entire affair to end in a quagmire (sounds familiar) without any of the aides ever having to answer any questions. That sounds like their typical strategy.

k Thx

[Emillereid]

60. The congress does not have to compromise! Just send the damn

subpoenas and stop being 'pussies." Let the showdown begin! Impeach the bastards! All of them -- then send them to the Hague for proper punishment as war criminals. (1 MILLION IRAQIS ARE DEAD BECAUSE OF THE BUSHIT'S WAR!) You don't negotiate with war criminals. AND NOT ANOTHER DIME FOR BUSHIE'S WAR!!!

[Gman]

61. Mr. Cornyn, elections have consequences

You're just another member of the minority and don't make any rules or decide anything, you f**k.

[Malva Zebrina]

62. I truly do not understand politics

We have a president who lied, over and over, to his own people, in order to attack and occupy a country and completely destroyed that country, invoked more terrorism, built some fifteen or more military bases, and continues on with our otwn troops being killed or horribly maimed and it is all for the lies of "freedom" and "protecting our freedom" and we know deep down in our hearts, that this is also a lie.

I do not understand, when the people elected Democrats in the past election, why the hell they have to "negotiate" with this little man in the White HOuse who prides himself on being a "war president' when it is NOt CLEAR at all, who we are at war with, and when our troops do not know clearly who the enemy is. In fact, what he has done is provoke more terrorists in his fake war on terrorism.

Why on earth would any sane person think they need to negotiate with this man? Why? What the hell is going on?

He lied--and no one IS CALLING HIM on his lies and our troops are being killed and civilians are caught up in this debacle that the US has forced upon them and they fight to oppose the occupiers?

Why are we considering any negotiation? Why are there not out there persons with a conscience who are willing to slap this asshole in the face and tell him to leave and prosecute him for his lies to the American people? I do not understand why no one is calling him on that.

[tavalon]

63. Negotiating?!

Oy vey. Morons. You don't negotiate with terrorists! Everyone knows that!

[Herman74]

65. These demands are UNNEGOTIABLE: 1) Under Oath, 2) Transcripts for the public to see

It's better to have this go to the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the decision is not rendered until after Bush is gone, so that once and for all the limits (if any) of Congress seeking testimony can be established. I think Bushie would lose if it went to the Supremes.

The Busheviks can't be allowed to hide their treachery, which is what a closed hearing would do.

[huskerlaw]

66. Send in Senator Boxer

She's damn good at telling Republicans just exactly who makes the rules. ;)

[cali]

74. er, no.

Love Barbara Boxer, but Patrick Leahy is a far better person to be running this than Boxer. She's not a lawyer. He's not only a lawyer, but was a prosecutor for 8 years. He has a ton more experience than she does, and sorry, he's far tougher.

[huskerlaw]

78. I was half kidding...

and was referencing the way she handed Inhofe his ass earlier this week.

[NJCher]

86. I completely appreciated that

I've watched that moment over and over and over and over. It was so funny when she had that gavel in her hands and said "You don't do this anymore!" LOLOLOLOL!

Thank God for youtube clips.

This has to go down as one of my absolute most favorite moments in politics.



Cher

[Gregorian]

68. You don't negotiate with murderers.

I'm thinking of Iraqis. The children who have illnesses due to depleted uranium. Think about that. Then think about negotiating. I think you'll find it difficult.

[bklyncowgirl]

69. Short of taking waterboarding and electric shocks off the table--no negotiations

I mean the Democrats CAN agree to not treat Rove and Miers the way that Gonzo and Cheney treat suspected enemy combatants but aside from that--no deals--no way.

[Morgana LaFey]

70. Compromise? There's NOTHING on which they can or should

compromise. Nothing.

What -- the under oath part?

Or perhaps the transcript part?

Or the behind closed doors part?

Let them set the agenda (and limit the questions?? and attendees??)

There is NO room on which to compromise. None.

I'm thoroughly disgusted there's even a discussion about this. THOROUGHLY.

[nealmhughes]

71. The Congress is an independent branch of our government. They do not need to "negotiate"

with anyone, having the power of the subponea.

I say that if BushCo wants a constitutional crisis, then let the crisis begin Monday when the TV lights are on and the subponeas served with no attendance.

The President, according to our Constitution, is an employee of the Government, selected by the electors of the several states in the Electoral College. His duties are innumerated, and the main one is to uphold the laws passed by the Congress. Through the impeachment process, he or she is ultimately answerable to the House if impeached and the Senate for trial.

The President does not make the law, he or she administers it, hence the name "Executive Branch." No one is above the law. When a legal writ is served, all have a duty to obey it by appearance. This includes the pasty faced porcine "counselor" Rove and his minions, Miers, Gozales, etc.

The porcine Rove is not a constitutional officer, he can be tried in open court for crimes the same as anyone else in the country who is not a constitutional officer of the United States.

To hell with Tyranny! To hell with the Unitary Executive and Up the Republic!

[cali]

75. Sorry, you're wrong.

Do some reading. Precedent strongly indicates that there hand and the power of their subpoena is strengthened by negotiation. Or do you suddenly know more than Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy?

[Solly Mack]

72. Tolja they would negotiate

she said to no one in particular

[sofa king]

73. Dateline: March 23, 2011:

Senators negotiating Rovian hostage release

WASHINGTON -- Reports indicate that Senate Democrats have been attempting to negotiate the release of Senator Joseph Lieberman (R-CT). Lieberman was abducted by Rovian rebels along with his driver and his lawyer while commuting to the Capitol from his Potomac, MD. Home.

Rovians beheaded Lieberman's driver, while the whereabouts of his driver remain unknown.

After the failed coup attempt of January 21, 2009, most of the Republican Party under the leadership of would-be dictator Karl Rove retreated to the mountains of Appalachia, where they have continued to fight a bloody guerrilla war. Former President Bush died of a rattlesnake bite during the guerrilla organization's initiation ceremonies.

[onehandle]

76. Under oath, in public, and on camera. Accept nothing else. nt

[sasquatch]

77. Will Howard Dean go over there and please re-attach their testicals

Earth to Jackasses:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PRICKS!!

:grr:

[HuffleClaw]

79. they'd better not settle for some bullshit COMPROMISE

like they have so many times before

[disndat]

81. How would anyone think

That Patrick "Go F yourself" Leahy would let Rove or any of the Bush gang get off the hook? He is probably enjoying watching Spector, Rove & Co. twisting in the wind. Leahy will give them as good as they gave clinton - in front of tv and under oath.

[dicknbush]

83. NEGOTIATING?????? FUCKING NEGOTIATING????

FUCK THAT!!!! MAKE THAT RAT FACED LITTLE ROLLY POLLY RAT FACED BIOY STAND UN THEIR IN HIS BIRTHDAY SUITE! OUR COUNTRY HAS HAD ENOUGH OF THIS PUKE. HE HAS SINGLE HANDIDLY WRECKED HAVOC ON THIS COUNTRY FROM MANY DIFFERENT QUATERS. ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH..... SEND HIM TO HELL!!!

[dicknbush]

84. WATGERBOARD ROVE IN FORNT OF THE SENATE PANEL

EVERY TIME HE GIVE AN EQUIVICAL ANSWERE DUNK HIM. FUCK ROVE FUCK ROVE FUCKE ROVE AND THE HORSES ASS THAT BOUGHT HIM TO WASHINGTON GEORGE DUM,BOYU BUSH!

[Canuckistanian]

87. Arlen Specter? Arlen Specter SHOULDN'T BE INVOVLED IN THIS

May I remind everyone that Arlen Specter is one of the main reasons that this whole sordid affair even happened.

His last minute insertion of the "no confirmation" USA provision STARTED this whole power grab.

The man should be hauled in front of that committee right beside Rove.

ON EDIT, READ THIS:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161260/

[tomp]

88. irony bordering on absurdity.

but will anyone notice?

[Pharaoh]

90. kickin for truth

:toast:

[wordpix]

91. Note to Congressional Dems: Do not make deals with criminal Repugs!!

[Orsino]

94. I don't get it.

What exactly can the White House offer that the subpoenas wouldn't get?

I will assume that there are other deals that could be cut that we'd never hear about. That sort of negotiation must go on all the time, I'm sure. This smells like dangerous waffling, though. I hope that Congress demands a lot for letting * pretend he's above checks and balances--and it had better include oaths and transcripts.

on edit: Hmm. I guess avoiding months or years of judicial challenges is a worthy goal.

[go west young man]

96. No negotiating.....

just put em on camera under oath. Please Dems quit catering to these conmen.

[IWantAChange]

97. Hey Freddy - pass this to the Chimp - 'Be Afraid - be very Afraid'

because the higher that curtain goes the more the American public is going to see of your incompetent governance of this country over the last 6 years.

[Cleita]

98. Fer chrissakes, there's nothing to negotiate.

You subpoena them, put the under oath and wring the truth out of them as it's always been done. They did it to Clinton and Monica. King George and his court are not above the law as long as we still have a Constitution.

[cali]

104. You're wrong.

Evidently the subpoenas are STRENGTHENED by an attempt at negotiating and there's precedent for this. Honestly, I'll trust that Pat Leahy knows what he's doing before I listen to a bunch of people on the internet who don't know a tenth of what he does.

[Cleita]

105. Goody for you. That's what's nice about the internet.

We can all air our opinions even the ones you don't agree with. I also have great respect for Leahy, but he is human and could err. There is a lot of historic precedence for this because if it weren't true we wouldn't have Bush as President today and there would be no Iraq war.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benld74]

106. Just finishd the book about the CIA Planes

Put Rove on one and fly him to one of the countries doing the torture for the good ole US of A. Will get the TRUTH from him in around 15 minutes.

[rodeodance]

107. umm. link in IP leads to this headline now:

........Ex-aide to Gonzales agrees to testify
Sampson exchanged e-mails about firings of federal prosecutors