March 21st, 2007
This just in: Congress reminds Bush he is not a king; Bush responds by stamping foot, threatening to hold breath until blue.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW!
It's eerie how closely this parallels the fight which directly led to Nixon's resignation, a fight which was also about executive privilege.
I'm fascinated by our continued belief, in this country, that elected officials and their appointees are willing to kill, steal, lie, cheat, and all manner of other atrocities...
...but if they're under oath, that will magically make them tell the truth.
And even the bigwigs act like they believe it, to the point where they will go to great lengths to prevent people from being put under oath.
I know that part of it is simply if you're under oath, you can be punished for failing to answer some questions, and even the Fifth Amendment doesn't fully protect you -- if you're under oath and granted blanket immunity, my understanding is that you're obligated to cooperate or you can be found in contempt of court; I have no idea what the equivalent would be if you're in oath in front of Congress.
But it seems to me that if these people really are the rat-bastard motherfuckers many of us usually think they are, a little perjury wouldn't make them bat an eye.
|Date:||March 21st, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC)|| |
There's differences, however, between perjury then and perjury now--the widespread ability to glean and analyze information has created, in essence, a tireless industry of fact-checkers, and a great many more outlets for information to be disseminated than three half-hour news shows late at night.
You can commit perjury, sure, with as much gusto as you used to--but the chances of being caught in that lie, and being exposed for it, have increased. And with the checks and balances back in place, post-2006, the chances of being punished for that exposure are higher as well.
Plus, in my opinion, even asking to be able to talk without being under oath is essentially admitting that you plan to lie. Frankly, any time one of this Administration's officials isn't under oath, I have to assume that they're lying. If they are under oath, I at least will look at the possibility that they're telling the truth.
|Date:||March 21st, 2007 08:38 pm (UTC)|| |
Yeah, but you're a terr'ist-loving liberal blinded by your BUSH HATE.
That's unfair. I also hate freedom and America and our troops.
I don't like the headline that CNN is currently using for this story: "Democrats set collision course for Bush." It's setting it up as less important than it actually is: this isn't a collision course between Democrats and Republicans or Democrats and Bush, it's a collision course between the legislative and executive branches of government (and it will no doubt quickly rope in the judicial branch as well). A full-blown constitutional crisis is definitely a strong possible result of this.
"definitely a strong possible result" is a stupid phrase. I don't know what I was thinking. Just read it as "a strong possibility."