In Executive Privilege Fight, More Talk Than Action

[danarhea]

In the battle over whether to subpoena White House aides, the Legal Times makes a compelling argument that Bush's position was a starting position, as is the position of Congress. As in any negotiation, both sides are going to start with non-starters, then negotiate from there towards a settlement somewhere in the middle.

This seems to be what is happening. Bush invoked a non-starter, and Congress threatened subpoenas. After reading the article, I don't think a confrontation is going to happen. Here is how it will play out, and I agree with this scenario:

1) Testimony does not have to be under oath, since lying to Congress is a Federal crime, whether under oath or not.

Note: That does not help Gonzales or Sampson, though, since they have already lied under oath, and Sampson, at least, may be indicted for perjury be the time this is all over. He has already obtained legal counsel, just in case the indictment happens.

Result - Congress will drop the "under oath" requirement.

2) Bush does not want to see his aides paraded publicly before the American people, as if in a circus. Therefore, he wants the meetings private.

Result - Congress will allow the meetings to be held in private.

3) Why would private hearings be acceptable? Because Congress wants a transcript of the proceedings. Otherwise, what good are hearings anyways? This is the key.

Result - Bush will relent, and allow a transcript.

And, of course, after the compromise is reached, talking heads on both sides of the aisle will spin a victory out of nothing. After all, what is a politician without hot air? Absolutely nothing.

Article is here.