Here we go again-Meiers, Rove, etc. will be "glad" to meet with the Congress but under oath"-No Way!! What's the problem?
2007-03-20 08:28:50 · 8 answers · asked by golfer7 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Under oath forces the truth which is like garlic to these Republican vampires
2007-03-20 11:48:23 · answer #1 · answered by nemesis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Senator Schumer: "We Do Have Evidence" Gonzales Lied Under Oath
Crooks and Liars
Sunday 18 March 2007
During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:
Alberto Gonzales: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.
When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."
This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.
2007-03-20 09:17:49 · answer #2 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This project isn't in elementary terms with Bush this is been with each and every of the Presidents I undergo in strategies in the final 50 years. the version is Bush has little tact or skill in dealing with people. besides the fact that if the subject is genuine. The President and his workforce are holders of counsel that's no longer avaible to the conventional public for sturdy reason. some because of the fact the each and every of the info are no longer in yet, some for defense motives. look what ensue to the CIA agent while the leak occured. Odds are she gets whacked interior of a 12 months or 2. the subject with Oath is that if the incorrect questions are asked the guy has to the two answer or plead national protection, and that finally leads to an entire new project. what's and isn't any longer coated with the help of national protection? maximum Presidents in the previous merely knew the thank you to artwork with Congress and the Elders there that administration the protection regulations in the 1st place. Backroom stuff, that took care of those themes. because of the fact Bush has treaded on soil (legal area) that he won't have the main superb to, people desire solutions, and that they deserve many solutions. yet in elementary terms to the excellent questions and not of the song in different fields.
2016-10-19 04:34:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know golfer7 that if not under oath they can say anything they want. Since they are liars to start with, it is sure thing that they would be caught in a lie. Which is what happened to Libby. I would guess that more then half of the Bush administration should be serving time in prison for their actions now.
2007-03-20 08:41:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The type of testimony that you refer to is congressional testimony. Under current law, there is no need to be "under oath" before Congress because lying to Congress is illegal. This was an issue when Democrats wanted Oil Execs sworn in to testify. Republicans responded that swearing people in before Congressional testimony was redundant. That's why you almost never see someone sworn in before they testify. Watch C-Span to see what I'm talking about.
2007-03-20 08:53:18 · answer #5 · answered by USC MissingLink 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Could be a separation of powers issue.
I wonder how many senators and congressmen would agree to be questioned under oath by Bush!
2007-03-20 09:16:05 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Testifying under oath is what got Clinton in trouble. Perjury is an easy crime to pin on an administration official, especially when they're lying :) I don't blame them of being scared to testify.
2007-03-20 08:43:54 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, they grilled scooter libby under oath for 8 hours without a lawyer for a non-crime and look what happened to him.
2007-03-20 08:35:13 · answer #8 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋