Testifying Behind Closed Doors, Not Under Oath with No Notes or Recordings: Sound Familiar?
TV News Lies has an interesting point about the whole "not testifying under oath" aspect of the current U.S. attorney scandal.
As a human being, putting all politics aside, what is your gut reaction to an individual or group of individuals who only agree to take part in an investigation if their testimony is hidden from the public, not under oath and unrecorded in any way including by stenography? If you have human blood flowing to a human brain, and that brain has not been atrophied by extensive participation if freerepublic.com discussions, watching too much FOX News or listening to too much Sean Hannity, you probably feel that the person or people setting those conditions pretty much have something to hide. You would be correct.
As we watch the US Attorney firing scandal unfold and we watch the standoff between the Bush administration and Congress over who will testify and under what conditions they will do so, I want you to remember back to the 9/11 Commission hearings. You remember the 9/11 Commission, don’t you? They are the people who neglected to mention in their report that WTC7’s destruction took place on that day. They are also the guys who did not report about the multiple war games taking place in the northeast corridor that day. Anyway, my point is that I want you to recall the conditions set by George W. Bush for his participation in that most important investigation. Bush would only testify if his testimony was private, limited to one hour, not under oath, not recorded in any way shape or form, excluded all 9/11 Commission members except the co-chairman, and with Dick Cheney by his side.
So for those of you who draw the obvious conclusions about the real reason that Bush is setting these restrictive conditions for Rove and company during the attorney general scandal investigation, you may want to apply the same obvious conclusions to Bush’s behavior regarding the 9/11 investigation! Think about it!
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
YES GO JESSE
GDub I totally was on this wavelength when I read that. what's Jesse's deal is he active at all 911wise? He has a great way of breaking things down--has a very steady message down that i like.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
'what's Jesse's deal is he active at all 911wise?'
Very much so. If I'm not mistaken, he was included in photos from the Chicago conference last June that were posted to this very blog.
Human reaction worldwide
Human reaction worldwide suggests their fooling no one. The Bush administration is under siege and theres too many fronts based on lies for them to defend. Karma, bring it on.
Let's Play A Game With Tony Snow
Click Here (realplayer)
Watch this as if Tony Snow was answering questions about Bush and Cheney testifying before the 9/11 Commission.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Leahy is on to them
Looks like Leahy is done taking this crap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR200703...
eh? what's that to do with 9/11?
there isn't any connection i can see... correct me if i'm wrong it would be interesting to know. otherwise seems a bit of a sideshow, unless there's something really juicy about these particular firings...
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
That post...
Was related to the topic of this blog.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
that wasn't my point
the essay by jesse is about reminding us about testifying under oath as opposed to not under oath as it regards 9/11, using the prosecutor firing as an example. as much as that relates to 9/11, the firing of the prosecutors has not been alleged as far as i can tell to have anything to do with 9/11.
The post that I commented on was a link to the story about the prosecutors, i.e. going off on a tangent without connecting it in any way to 9/11. For what it's worth, I tried to edit the title after thinking it over, to be less confrontational and more to the point, but when I clicked submit on the edited reply it told me ACCESS DENIED.
I notice, Jon, you didn't have the same problem, seeing as how you edited your post above to remove the part about how you had already blogged this story. I guess you realized that it probably made you sound needlessly miffed. I also notice that your new commitment to being cordial means that when you jump on any opportunity to get on my case you will do so without sarcasm, which is most agreeable on your part. :)
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
You can't...
Edit a post that's been replied to, which is how I was able to edit my above post that had a comment that might have been seen as argumentative. I didn't mean for it to sound that way, so I edited it, and instead left the video of Tony Snow taking questions about the subpoenas.
Also, I am not waiting for the opportunity to "jump" on you.
If it's ok with you, I would prefer to drop it. No need to reply to this.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
thanks
that's good to know. it had not been replied to when I attempted to edit it. i'm perfectly happy to drop this, but my question stands as to what this might have to do with 9/11. A reporter towards the end asks about this being connected with vote fraud and other investigations--maybe that includes 9/11--who knows?
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
To my knowledge...
The only thing the firings have to do with 9/11 is the analogous relationship between the Administration's offer of Rove and Miers with that of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission, and the limitations they have set on both.
My question is, why is Patrick Leahy pushing for subpoenas for sworn testimony now, and not for 9/11.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
The Leahy and the supoenas story
suggests to me that he is intensely aware of the 9/11 commission protocol regarding questoning Whitehouse officials and doesnt want a repeat. Not to say that 9/11 etc... is his endpoint.
Leahys comments are also an example of a reaction to the Administrations maneuvers to avoid telling the truth, the subject of George Washingtons Blog.
Control of the prosecutors is potentially a way to choke 9/11 investigations and prosecutions. I believe this is a reasonably obvious connection.
Leahy was also the target of Cheney intimidation; the internationally covered "Fuck Off!" on the senate floor.
The attorney Lam is also thougt to have been in the process of moving beyond the Cunningham conviction to associated procecutions.
There are some other 9/11 tie-ins I can elucidate, if you like RT, however I agree that the relation of the story to 9/11 may not be obvious.
Freedom is NOT Free
and the Bush admin is determined to remove any Freedoms that the working classes now enjoy.
The american aristocracy makes up the rules as the shredders sing in the background
Lobby girl Pillosi said it all NO IMPEACHEMNT
and its OK to nuke Iran
The Bush family is proving again that they are above the laws of humanity.
The dims helped create this situation
The silence of the Democrats is truly deafening especially as the cash register rings in the death toll.
Freedom and Ignorance CANNOT mutually exist for too long.
"A revolution is coming - a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough - but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character, we cannot alter its inevitability. "
John F. Kennedy
regarding testifying under oath...
...and potus and vice-potus not testifying under oath to the 9/11 commission:
they already took an oath when inaugurated. to my knowledge, there is no way to undo that oath except to leave office voluntarily, involuntarily, or by term limit. i've never heard of any formal ceremony whereby a public servant is temporarily released from the obligations of their oath of office.
the real issue is lack of an official transcript. if they lied to the commission, then they still would be violating their oath of office by failing to faithfully execute the laws of the united states and obstructing justice in an official investigation. impeachable high crime.
did gonzales swear an oath. i believe this is a requirement of his taking office. an official transcript should be good enough to be used as evidence of his committing a crime like obstruction of justice, if necessary.
somebody have information on a temporary unoath of office? i love to read one.
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
Good points. Impeachment.
Good points.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Now for the next question...
DID THE MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION SWEAR AN OATH TO ASSUME THEIR "OFFICE"?
If so, where is it filed. I want a certified copy of each one.
I have not been able to find an answer to this question.
Help?
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
I cannot stand the spineless
I cannot stand the spineless Dems. in congress. Have they been living under a rock that the rest of us seem to have steered clear from?! Are we the only ones that can see high criminality as clear as day!? If consequences aren't bestowed upon these individuals, then I've really lost all my faith in honest government.
And I'm saying, even if they
And I'm saying, even if they aren't willing to side with 9-11 Truth, there is still a plethora to convict upon. Last time I checked, lying to Congress is a crime. Add to that the lie was to start a war that claimed upwards of 100,000 lives, then I think that just MIGHT smack of impeachment, DO YOU THINK MS. PELOSI?! Do your job, Dems!!!!
Dems = Reps
When you sit back and realize that both parties are exactly the same, the weakness of the Democrats will wash away and everything will make sense.
They are the same party. It's smoke and mirrors to make us feel like we have a choice.
When I see how this war bill is going to play out, it's SO obvious we only have one party in this country.
Everyone sees "TROOPS OUT BY SPRING 2008" but no one covers the part "[that is, unless the Iraq government proves it can't handle national security at that time...]" Our troops will be there forever.
Dems = Reps