I have not seen a transcript of Mr. Archer's testimony. That said, I suspect his attorneys advised him thusly: (1) it is perilous to provide testimony that can be demonstrated to be false; and (2) it behooves you to remain in "good standing" with the man who can pardon you.
That said, I suspect Mr. Archer provided testimony concerning the existence of the phone calls because his attorneys believed that the committee either already had phone records showing their existence, or would soon get those records. Denying their existence would open him up to perjury charges, at the very least. The question is: did Mr. Archer provide testimony concerning any topic he didn't believe the committee to already know by virtue of records? I suspect he did not, but I hope I'm wrong.
I have not seen a transcript of Mr. Archer's testimony. That said, I suspect his attorneys advised him thusly: (1) it is perilous to provide testimony that can be demonstrated to be false; and (2) it behooves you to remain in "good standing" with the man who can pardon you.
That said, I suspect Mr. Archer provided testimony concerning the existence of the phone calls because his attorneys believed that the committee either already had phone records showing their existence, or would soon get those records. Denying their existence would open him up to perjury charges, at the very least. The question is: did Mr. Archer provide testimony concerning any topic he didn't believe the committee to already know by virtue of records? I suspect he did not, but I hope I'm wrong.