Reply #6: But technically, semantically, he would be on firmer ground by saying that

[Dhalgren]

his advisers cannot testify under oath regarding advice they may or may not have given the President regarding anything, at all. There would be many legal scholars who would say that makes sense. But he came out and said that he doesn't want his advisers to testify under oath because it might harm those advisers. That is a stand that no legal scholar, anywhere, would support. Of course the compromise Conyers should respond with is to agree to not ask any questions regarding direct communications with the President. That would satisfy the "advising the President" problem and then it would be Bush's turn to reiterate that he doesn't want Karl to have to incriminate himself for any crime he may have committed - let him defend that one...