It's all about the transcript

I just realized that I was missing the point below about transcripts and oaths; one that explains the real reason for Dan Bartlett's ducking and weaving. [I originally wrote "weaseling," but now fear ColumbusGuy's devastating "Bedwetter!" attacks.] ColumbusGuy reminded me about an article that I think gets to the heart of the Rove subpoena debate:

Even without oaths, Bush aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.

Indeed, that's what it all comes down to. The oaths are just for show in front of the cameras; it's the transcript that matters. Schumer wants a transcript as a basis for indicting Rove if there is contradictory testimony or stonewalling. Bush does not want a transcript, recognizing that there almost always will be some contradiction when multiple people remember multiple conversations. It's really a question of trust -- or lack thereof. Schumer doesn't trust Rove not to lie unless under direct threat of jail; Bush doesn't trust Schumer not to grasp some meaningless error in detail as a basis for indictment. And the latter fear should be considered in the context of Republican vulnerability to all of their past words about the threats to our very way of life that result from lying under oath.

Columbus Guy says: I didn't see any ducking and weaving, BW. I saw clarity: "criminal political pursuit" captures it precisely. It's strong enough to support a cottage industry in the law schools.

Meanwhile, all Mr. Siegel can do is act the Dem shill, as you so aptly point out: "Can we record it, huh, can we?" That could be considered competent reporting, but not when there is not, and will not be, commensurate bulldogging of the Dems on the criminal political pursuit angle (NPR-ites can see that angle only when Democrats are being persecuted). [NPR-ites? I think I'll stick with Manhattan Media.]

QueensGuy says: How about neepers? Nice counterpoint to freepers, n'est pas?

I thought Siegel's doggedness was justified -- there really is no excuse for the slippery slope in response to an offer of compromise -- but you are absolutely right about balance. The questions for Schumer should start with: (1) do you agree that even the "political motivated" firing of a US Atty is perfectly lawful, absent the intent to interfere with an ongoing prosecution or investigation?; (2) what evidence have you seen so far of such an intent to interfere?; (3) what do you say to critics who argue that you should first interview -- under oath -- the responsibile parties from the Justice Dept., and review the full set of documents that have been produced to you? [The longwindedness shows why I'd make a crappy reporter]