Karl Rove has already spoken in public, denying that politics had a role in the purge. How can he claim a privilege against speaking about the same matters under oath before the Congress? Does he contend that his false statements at Republican fund-raisers don't violate the privilege, but his true statements to Congress would?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Good Point!
Mark Kleiman, a lawyer whose blog is often referenced by my favorites makes a great point about the WH claims to not be required to testify before congress:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment