Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Difference Between Interviews and Testimony

It looks like the Whitehouse is spending a great deal of political capital to avoid the checks and balances established by our Constitution. Whenever a set of politicians suggest that the other side is simply playing politics, I think we have to request that they point the giant wagging finger of blame inward.

In the case of the AG and the firings of relatively qualified judges as the Whitehouse struggles to defend itself, we have to ask ourselves to what end? If you ask me, it sounds rather suspicious; like they are trying to hide something. If they had nothing to fear they wouldn't fear testifying.

Is there a difference between being interviewed and testifying? You betchya! And that's the very reason why the Whitehouse is fearful of being brought in front of congress and have to swear on their beloved bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Q But I'm pressing on a point that these are not actually interviews -- that's your word. The senators, like Senator Leahy, say they want testimony. Testimony, there is a transcript. This is not an interview. You want it to be an interview, but it's up to the Congress. They're the ones investigating, and they say they want testimony, not interviews.

MR. SNOW: Ed, what we're doing is we're trying to be accommodating to Congress by offering them extraordinary insight into a deliberative process. You also know that everybody who goes -- the President expects everybody who talks to Congress to tell the truth, and so does the law. And they know that it would be illegal not to tell them truth.

So the question you've got to ask yourself is, is this pressure on transcripts and everything, is this really something where somebody thinks that there's going to be a fact that they're not going to receive? The answer is, no. The question is whether you are trying to create a political spectacle, rather than simply the basis of getting at the truth. This, I think, is an important and crucial distinction, because, again, I'm not sure -- well, I think we can say with confidence that they're going to get every fact they need to find out what's going on.

Q Are you afraid that they'll be able to go through and find inconsistencies in testimony if there's a transcript?

MR. SNOW: No, they'll be able to do it.
Really, Tony? If your pals in the W, Rove and Co are planning on delivering the facts, and just the facts; then why the hesitation to do it under oath? Suspicious, no? Really, what is their past history in being forthcoming with facts (see refusal of the Veep to testify in Libby's hearing)?

But what is it that the President and his staff are really trying to do?
Q Tony, the President said yesterday, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Does the President feel as though Karl and his other top aides are being unfairly targeted in some way, singled out? Is he feeling sort of like he needs, in a way, to protect them from a --

MR. SNOW: I think what the President is really trying to do is to protect the integrity of the institution.

Q But he seems to be particularly concerned about honorable public servants.

MR. SNOW: I think that people probably who are -- seem to be most concerned are people on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.
If you ask me, the W, Rove and Co has sold their integrity a long time ago...about six years to be exact. There is nothing left there to protect as they have sullied the institution over and again with their actions.

No comments: