2007-03-20 08:34:05 · 19 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Butterbar: Guess you forgot who compelled Clinton testify under oath, huh? Independent counsel appointed by Congress.
2007-03-20 16:54:43 · update #1
Most likely, many would.
There seems to be the mistaken impression among many Bush-supporters that the President is immune for having to follow federal laws.
There are specific federal laws, including some signed by Bush, that require the President to provide specific information to Congress. And Congress can always require that information be provided under oath.
2007-03-20 08:39:11 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
There is an important difference between judicial testimony and Congressional testimony. One stems from the Judicial Branch and has to do with high crimes and misdemeanors which lead ultimately to impeachment because the President is not above the law. The other comes from the Legislative Branch and generally speaking the Separation of Powers protects the Executive Branch from carte blanche Legislative Branch authority. You may not like the current Administration, but people should think very carefully before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2007-03-20 16:03:03 · answer #2 · answered by USC MissingLink 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
But what about Clinton... j/k. In truth, he was investigated... a lot. But, this is the fond excuse given by any conservative who does not think that we should look into the affairs of the GOP. If they spent half the time and money investigating Bush, or any other Republican for that matter, as they did Clinton, we wouldn't be in Iraq because we would be filing for bankruptcy.
Make him testify under oath, and when he perjures himself, watch them all scream, in unison, "What about Clinton."
(Oh and international law that we signed says he can go to trial for allowing torture. See we liked the idea of being able to tri countries for torturing US citizens.)
2007-03-20 15:55:47 · answer #3 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It sounds like there would be a separation of powers issue.
Can the President put senators and congressmen under oath and make them testify?
2007-03-20 15:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Would you have a problem with the White House investigating who Democrats talked to before they voted on a bill?
Did you want Clinton to testify under oath when he fired *all* US attorneys?
2007-03-20 15:38:37 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Under oath to who, exactly? To Congress? Hell, no. They have no Constitutional authority to compel him to testify under oath.
2007-03-20 15:45:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
First of all produce the part of law that permits a sitting president to be required to testify to congress. There is none.
2007-03-20 15:49:55 · answer #7 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
For what reason. The reason he gave for going to war are the same ones Clinton claimed back in 1998 for God's sake. He just lacked a pair to take action.
2007-03-20 15:52:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you do that, you have to bring Clinton into the mix. He brought up Iraqi weapons of mass destruction back in 1998.
2007-03-20 15:43:22 · answer #9 · answered by DOOM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am a Conser not neo but I have no problem with it and if he lies hold him in contempt get him for perjury but there are some questions that would have to go unanswered in order to protect our troops. I don't like how politicians lie to the people they are supposed to serve and I think that it should be dealt with.
2007-03-20 15:42:43 · answer #10 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋