I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.

Student debt including consolidation loans which grants primary consolidation.

TMM:

I did post a reply — it was deleted. Sorry.

Assuming that’s true (which, given your track record, is seriously doubtful), you couldn’t post it again?

Seems you managed to post quite a few comments from your lame excuse to the present time…funny how the answer to my question wasn’t among them…

Did I miss something? Did you even address my question?

You’re now trying to distract by parsing words like “testifying”? Are you trying to say that testfying under oath would be the same thing as forcing the testimony, but VOLUNTARILY “providing the info” is not? If so, do you have some rationalization for that distinction? Because I sure as hell don’t see it.

If the information is the same either way (since they will obviously be telling the truth, right?) why need there be a difference? And what, in fact is the practical difference? Not the semantic difference, not the constitutional difference (as you see it) but the PRACTICAL difference between the two situations?

Here’s UPDATE II: TPMMuckraker has more from today’s committee hearing, plus this video of Leahy ripping into the proposed White House deal: “What they are offering is nothing, nothing, nothing.”

Actually, Pat, in addition to everything that has already been provided, Fielding offered:

a) Private interviews with Miers, Rove and (unnamed) Deputy Counsel / Special Assistant in the Office of Political Affairs, limited to the subject matter of course and as a last resort after the Committees hear testimony from everyone else (see letter);

b) All communications between White House and DoJ on the subject; and

c) All communications between White House staff and third parties on the subject.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/whcounselltrmarch202007.html

Simple question. Doesn’t require a lot of double-talk. Doesn’t require a lot of cut-and-paste or mis-used legal terms like “waiver of priviledge”.

Why is testifying UNDER OATH a violation of “Executive Priviledge” (as you imply) but testifying NOT under oath is not?

For whatever reason, Bush is trying to bend over backwards to compromise and grant a LIMITED waiver of the privilege — what he won’t do (and I agree) is grant an unlimited waiver — too bad that long post that explained how past Presidents have claimed Executive Privilege but Congress graciously accepted the limited waiver. Not this time, it seems. So, maybe we will find out once and for all (from the ROBERTS Supreme Court) who was right.

I did post a reply — it was deleted. Sorry.

I can see you making that argument if we were talking about the difference between testifying and NOT testifying, but that’s not the issue here.

One is UNDER OATH. The other is NOT UNDER OATH. Difference?

Comment by Jake

Hint #1: Karl Rove is not GWB’s attorney. Neither is Harriet Miers. Nor is Gonzo (he’s the attorney for the US of A, not the President’s personal attorney)

hint #2: No one is evoking attorney/client privilege, which should give you some idea of how useful that argument is.

Hint #3: GWB has already said he doesn’t know anything about this, so he doesn’t have anything to worry about, does he?

C’mon…you seemed so sure of yourself…it can’t take this long for you to come up with an answer…

Let me try it this way: have either of you ever been represented by an attorney? If you haven’t, just imagine a divorce case where you had to tell your attorney every dirty little detail of your life just so that he could be prepared for the other side’s case — how would you feel if your attorney was forced to testify?

(If you want to discuss JOHN PODESTA posting about Mrs. Edwards more, let me know ; )

We’ve already seen a preview of this with Jake’s posts and his b.s about their willingness to “voluntarily cooperate”.