Guys, Just Admit It

Challenge: Explain to me how refusing to testify under oath and on record is anything different than admitting guilt and wanting the ability to lie your ass off.

Apologies for getting political today. Not my thing normally, but sometimes I just can’t keep myself from getting vocal about Pinch-Eyes the Monkey Prez and his band of Armani-clad goons.

For those not into following the myriad of methods by which the American government is currently skull-raping the peoples’ civil rights, I’ll just get you up to speed on the latest scandal.

Attorney General (and unapologetic Bush shill) Alberto Gonzalez fired eight federal prosecutors allegedly because they were not loyal to the President. Because of the fact that US judges are supposed to be nonpartisan, this has, not surprisingly, created something of a stir. As a result, Gonzalez and that man-swine Carl Rove are being asked to speak to many interesting points of the affair.

But here’s the kicker: they don’t want to testify under oath and on the record. Bush has tried to disguise this blatant attempt to protect his administration’s boundless corruption by claiming that under-oath testimony would conflict with the separation of powers. Har! How deliciously ironic, considering this entire case is about a flagrant disregard for the separation of powers!

To be clear, it doesn’t surprise me that this is the angle Dubya is playing. After all, he has some experience in the whole lying under oath thing. For that matter, so does Gonzalez. Oh, and so does Rove.

So… I challenge anyone who thinks this administration is anything less than a murder of villainous politi-crows to leave a comment explaining to me exactly how refusing to testify under oath is any different than saying you want to have the freedom to bear false testimony. Do your best to put a positive spin on it. But be careful in your response, because unless you say something outwardly hateful, your comment will remain for all to see. And don’t insult yourself by informing me Clinton also lied under oath; that’s a textbook example of ad hominem tu quoque and will only serve to make you look ignorant and plebeian.

There’s no discrimination here, by the way. Those who just want to go on the record as totally agreeing with me that the Bush Administration is made up of liars and larcenists may also feel free to comment.

Read and post comments


About kirkstarr

I draw pictures for a living.
This entry was posted in Can I Say Something? and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Guys, Just Admit It

  1. Kevin Wolf says:

    I was just ranting about this yesterday. Agreeing to testify without swearing in is the same thing as asking for permission to lie.

  2. I have just one thing to say to Bush and his supportersLiar Liar pants on Fire.

  3. Budd says:

    Bush runs the government like a high school reunion gone bad. He only invites his friends to the party leaving everyone else out in the cold. Seems like some people got in that weren't invited and he is bouncing them. It is amazing that he still thanks that he can get away with crap like this. Bush single handedly destroyed the republican party and it looks like he is trying to desecrate their grave in his last two years.

  4. AmyH says:

    One would think if you have nothing to hide, you want to say your piece out in the open, under oath and in full view of the American public. Wouldn't you want to defend your innocence to the hilt?
    But to say, "Well, I'll talk to you about it, but only in private with a select few and I want no record of our conversation.
    By hiding, they are saying all we need to know.

  5. lauowolf says:

    I'm just trying to figure *how* this would fall under separation of powers.
    Because it doesn't seem to me that this would be part of going about their executive branch duties.
    And I can't see how it could be a sensitive defense issue.Does this mean that anyone doing anything for the executive branch (and by logical extension, also the legislative branch) can't be asked to testify under oath before the judicial branch.But that doesn't make sense (checks and balances, anyone?)So it must just be an attempt to hide dirty politics.

  6. Potty Mouth says:

    This is ridiculous. I don't think we will see anything good from our government ever again. I think it is broken beyond fixing.

  7. mariser says:

    here are some of David C. Iglesias's (one of the eight fired USAs) on an op-ed to the New York Times today. methinks is relevant to the discussion at hand.Why I Was FiredBy DAVID C. IGLESIAS

  8. JamesTr says:

    Looks like the House is fed up, too.

    A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
    Hopefully something real and maybe a little truth will come out of this.

  9. Potty Mouth says:

    I forgot about the challenge part. They can refuse to testify under oath by law if the testimony would incriminate themselves. So, yes, you are right, they are scum. Most of the administrations preceeding this one were also scum, some may have found one scum to be more tolerable than others but they were all equal in their scum factor.

  10. devonrex says:

    Our guts say: liar!, and mine does too, but silence cannot be proof of guilt in a legal sense. My comments following apply to a criminal proceeding, and what you're describing is some kind of administrative, governmental proceeding, so feel free to disregard all this on those grounds. Here goes: If someone's guilty, there should be more proof out there beyond having to rely on the individual's own testimony (or lack thereof). If someone's guilty, we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Those principles exist for you, and for me, and for very good reasons. If something is proven, it's proven. The failure to testify does not add or retract from this. The failure to testify is a neutral, non-issue. There are only very rare cases where the failure to tesify attracts substance. By the way, I still think they're lying liars…

  11. Kirk says:

    Excellent insights, devonrex. I've no doubt that Rove is a master at slithering out from under huge scandals precisely by committing his every crime with careful observance of the "burden of proof" and its very specific requirements.I also have very little trust that Rove will go down for this. I just wanted to make it clear that "pleading the fifth" tells everyone you're guilty, regardless of what proof there is of the fact.

  12. Dancing Bear says:

    Just the fact that Justice Deaprtment Leadership and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL should not be under oath. They are all under Oaf! Put their hands on that Bible now and lets get on with the Impeachment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s