2007-03-20 10:51:01 · 15 answers · asked by Groovy 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And, Gonzales' resignation.
2007-03-20 10:51:57 · update #1
I think that's what he stated...
2007-03-20 10:54:19 · update #2
Then why make a big tadoo about it? Why state he's going to block any if they can't anyway?
2007-03-20 10:56:22 · update #3
Fake Cow, we aren't talking about the President. We are talking about their officials, which that does not apply.
2007-03-20 11:23:55 · update #4
It's another example of Bush declaring that he doesn't respect the law, and doesn't intend to follow the law.
2007-03-20 10:55:43 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because they know they'll perjure themselves.
And for those who are crying "executive privilege", read it and weep:
"To read the Art[icle] II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art[icle] III."
Nixon v US 1974
Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.
2007-03-20 18:10:47 · answer #2 · answered by fake_cowboy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The liberals are still searching for a skeleton in the closet with the firing of the US Attorneys. What part of " appointed" don't these so called educated elected officials understand. These people were appointed to the job and can, at the Presidents leisure, UN-Appoint them.
They don't like to talk about Clinton firing 93 of them his first term. That would be embarrassing.
2007-03-20 17:57:12 · answer #3 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well a subpeona is a court order to appear. So, even though Bush might like to think he is above the law, he really isn't. He can try to block them, but it won't get him far.
2007-03-20 17:54:25 · answer #4 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush is calling Nancy Pelosi's bluff.
I doubt she'll rise to the occasion.
She's a NON BINDING Speaker of the House.
2007-03-20 17:56:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Congress is wrong and it is time for Bush to tell them to go pound sand. If they spent half the time doing good for this country that they spend trying to throw dirt at Bush things could be better. Who among them questioned Clinton's firing of all the Us attorneys or even His outright lies while under impeachment. Now Hillary is continuing the tradition by slanting facts to fit her agenda.
2007-03-20 17:55:50 · answer #6 · answered by whitey 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's called "separation of powers". Never heard of Executive Privilege?
Can Congress force the executive branch to testify under oath about confidential communications?
Should they be allowed to? what about vice versa?
Read below and be educated.
Edit: Fake cowboy below can't even read his own link!! LOL!! there are NO criminal charges. LOL!!
2007-03-20 18:00:17 · answer #7 · answered by charbatch 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because of the corruption of his whole gang and the fact that if they swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole bunch of them would be arrested and thrown in jail.
2007-03-20 18:08:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who was held accountable when all 93 prosecutors were fired in the last administration...?... What is the significance of this issue, besides Democrats trying to pull down this administration...?...
2007-03-20 17:59:45 · answer #9 · answered by the_skipper_also 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
gwb gave more or less the same endorsement to Rumsfield; a week or so later, he was gone.
2007-03-20 17:57:04 · answer #10 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋