What, pray tell, is the point of having interviews if there is no transcript (everything said can be denied like this "uh, I don't remember saying that" or "uh, that is not what I said"). And why would they insist that the testimony not be given under oath unless they are planning to lie lie lie? How can anyone spin this positively? It is absolutely ridiculous.
The White House wanted them to be “interviewed,” in private, with no transcript and no oath. That was in March. .
The administration is essentially saying "we'll talk with you tell you what ever you want to hear as long as we can't be prosecuted for lying and we can later deny anything we tell you."
How can the 28% who still support Bush hear this and not be appalled?
We are not talking about a blow job here, we are talking about subverting the constitution. "The firings are unethical but not illegal" you say? If that is true then why did Monica Goodling (a lawyer who presumably understands the 5th amendment) refused to testify on the subject citing the 5th amendment? Doesn't that, at the very least, demand an investigation with open hearings and all testimony under oath?
In other News, James Comey has made it clear that Alberto Gonzoles lied or, at the very least, mislead congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment