On Wednesday 21 March 2007 4:22 pm, Ed Leafe wrote: > 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?
Hi Ed! Several years ago President Ford was criticized for pardoning Nixon in advance. In retrospect, people concede that he averted a major distraction and got the government back in the business of running the country. I see this in the same vein. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.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.
