But not under oath. How laughable is that?
2007-03-20 08:40:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They need to be under oath or not do it at all. They are going to lie out their teeth. Time for subpoenas.
2007-03-20 08:45:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Very, since there is now evidence that the INJustice Dept Chief lied to Congress about the US Attorney firings, the subject too of the Rove and Miers questions. And Fitz was on the list but ultimately didn't get the ax, because THAT would REALLY smell.
2007-03-20 16:13:39 · answer #2 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I read your question, the first thing I thought was "under oath?" But of course not, that was a silly thing to even think. Can this Administration make itself look anymore corrupt than it already has? What's wrong with them being under oath if they aren't going to lie about it? What kind of sense does that make? Are we really supposed to accept a "trust me" from the likes of Karl Rove? What a joke.
If I read Patrick Leahy right last night, he told this Administration in no uncertain terms that the Congress will demand statements made under oath and nothing else will be acceptable. They, and the American people, are sick to death of this Administration's spin machine. It's time to go to the mattresses and demand TRUTHFUL answers under oath and under threat of perjury. Nothing else can be acceptable from this Administration any longer.
2007-03-20 15:52:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont know what is worse, that they are finally "allowing" them to testify or that by saying that can not be required to answer under oath they are already making themselves look like idiots...
I guess it means that the President doesn't mind if his people lie as long as they are not under oath?
2007-03-20 16:08:09 · answer #4 · answered by Paul 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is just a liberal media story. Hell, Clinton fired 19 in one day for political purposes. Bush's biggest problem with this mess is he wanted to set a new tone of partnership and allowed the judges to remain. Bush should have replaced them with in months. Once again, the media and the dems are pursuing an activity that is legal.
2007-03-20 16:37:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've already written to the House Judiciary Committee and called the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that Rove's testimony be public and sworn.
2007-03-20 15:48:30 · answer #6 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a laugh of the century otherwise they can lie but you can talk to them, what a sorry thing they all our in that Admin., just a bunch of no good liars. From the top to the bottom. No, need to talk to them , who wants to listen to some more Bush lies, we hear them everyday when he opens his mouth. Just let them two thugs stay put, both as sorry as the other one.
2007-03-20 15:47:45 · answer #7 · answered by Nicki 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The White House has no say in the matter.
Congress can require them to appear and testify under oath.
Whether Congress will is a different question.
2007-03-20 15:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yeah, its a big joke. they know they are trying to cover stuff up, so they dont want to go under oath. hopefully congress will do it anyway.
2007-03-20 15:47:30 · answer #9 · answered by 2010 CWS Champs! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It pretty much tells you how corrupt these guys are. Now they can lie about everything with no consequenses. And repubs applaud. Disgraceful.
2007-03-20 15:53:00 · answer #10 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋