Let me get this straight: Bush's current and former staff members
can testify before Congress, but there can't be any sort of record
kept, and the testimony can't be under oath?
Let's assume for a minute that there is no public record of their
testimony; that it's all done in a confidential, sealed manner. Why
not under oath? I can think of one and only one difference that would
make: they couldn't be prosecuted for lying.
Can someone fill me in on why they would insist on this? Does it
seem to anyone else that Bush is demanding permission for these
people to lie without consequence?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
