If, as Bush asserts, the Executive Branch was never involved in the attorney firings in the first place, why does Bush feel the need to order Harriet Miers to not testify about it? Why does Bush have to order Harriet Miers to not testify about something that allegedly never happened?
I don't care if attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President - that is not what my question is about.
All I'm asking is, if Bush/Cheney/Rove, et. al., were not involved in the firing of the eight attorneys, then why would Bush need to order Harriet Miers to not testify about something that Bush says never happened in the first place?
2007-07-12
04:55:54
·
12 answers
·
asked by
?
7
in
Law & Ethics