Montfort, does unsworn testimony mean nobody gets to swear?

Likewise, if Democratic leaders publicly say in comments that find the way to top editorials that they want to “compromise,” especially at this point, we must be at amateur hour. Even if you HAVE to compromise, you don’t show your hand like that. Not that I think they should.

This sort of thing is poisonous. They have a potential here, if they only fight and grab hold. If they don’t, the future can be quite dark.

Well, “behoove” is a wimp word, and altogether suited for the Times’s flaccid editorials. Right off the bat, the subhead contradicts the headline; where are the limits on executive privilege if you compromise by letting Miers et al lie to Congress without penalty? Because that’s exactly what the Times advocates.

There are gigantic holes in the argument for a compromise between Bush and the Congress. The Times cites – as it reverses the meaning of – the Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs Nixon, which actually said Nixon’s executive privilege didn’t overrule Congress’s right to information. The Times says, “Presidents should be able to confide in aides and to solicit advice without it being made public.”

Well, first of all, the Times’s support of executive privilege falls flat because Bush claims he had no role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. Exactly what executive privilege, then, could he claim?

Second, allowing Bush aides to give unsworn testimony is no compromise. It’s a surrender. There’s strong evidence that administration officials lied under oath and are getting away with it. And yet the Times advocates allowing them to lie while not under oath?

What good will that do? At least perjury is a crime and can be prosecuted. Saying that the current Supreme Court isn’t likely to support a congressional criminal investigation is a sorry excuse for giving up on sworn testimony. And there’s no evidence of that supposition anyway – as bad as the Roberts court is, it has, if rarely, ruled against Bush. This kind of editorial hypothesizing has no place in a paper of this importance on an issue of this magnitude. That sorry rationale is akin to that claiming impeachment proceedings shouldn’t be attempted because they’ll fail anyway.

All this in support of Congress compromising with Bush by allowing unsworn testimony. Then the paper says Bush also has cause to compromise if he wants to avoid the process of a special prosecutor’s investigation. The paper quotes Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island saying senators have not yet discovered a “smoking gun.” And of course there’s no smoking gun. Yet. That’s because the administration is lying through its teeth, hiding and destroying evidence, and figuratively flipping off the Congress and the public.

The LA Times, in other words, says both Congress and president can benefit from compromise: Congress, because this way it won’t face losing in the courts; and the president, because compromise might help Bush keep that smoking gun well-hidden. Allowing unsworn testimony – is that an oxymoron or what? – will only ensure that the smoking gun is never found.

What a miserable stand for a beacon of journalism to take.

Wait. Scratch that “beacon of journalism” stuff.