A matter of political survival
Fox News
by Susan Estrich
03/26/07
What’s the difference between testifying in private, with no oath, tapes or transcript, and answering the same questions in sworn, public testimony? Or to put it another way … if you’re willing to tell all in private, why make a federal case of doing it under oath in public? If it’s a question of principle, what’s the principle? It certainly isn’t about secrecy. In general, you might think that the reason to have private sessions is to keep things private. But in this context, nothing could be more absurd...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261046,00.html
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Susan+Estrich
by Susan Estrich
03/26/07
What’s the difference between testifying in private, with no oath, tapes or transcript, and answering the same questions in sworn, public testimony? Or to put it another way … if you’re willing to tell all in private, why make a federal case of doing it under oath in public? If it’s a question of principle, what’s the principle? It certainly isn’t about secrecy. In general, you might think that the reason to have private sessions is to keep things private. But in this context, nothing could be more absurd...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261046,00.html
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Susan+Estrich
rudkla - 27. Mär, 16:47
