Pants on Fire

Awhile back, I wondered aloud why someone might refuse to testify under oath. Seems to me that the only reason is that you wouldn't want to be caught lying, or have an official record for the same reason.

In other words, the plan is TO LIE.

But hey, I'm apparently a wild-eyed partisan liberal with an agenda dead-set against the current administration. So maybe I jumped the gun here.

Um, nope.

The administration's counsel, Fred Fielding, said as much today, saying that to go on the record would be "a perjury trap."

"As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth."

In case that's not crystal clear, Steve Benen (subbing in for Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly) sums it up:

Got that? As Fielding sees it, if there's a written record of what Bush's aides say, senators might have proof if they lie. It's preferable, then, to have no record and simply assume that White House staffers are being honest. And if you disagree with any of this, you prefer "confrontation" to cooperation.