(Reuters) With regards to the Dismissal of 8 Lawyers.....
In a letter to relevant members of Congress, White House counsel Fred Fielding made clear he was not offering Rove and other aides to give sworn testimony as had been requested.
"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas," Fielding wrote.
Democratic lawmakers described the offer as unsatisfactory, saying they wanted the witnesses under oath.
2007-03-20 11:26:48 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry, Children...Guess some of you don't read, just listen to FOX.
A lawful cacus has been called to examine this problem, and the WITNESSES are rquired to be under oath during their questioning....ROVE refuses...THIS in itself is unlawful. MY QUESTIONS IS, WHY WON'T HE?? What is he afraid off? You're right, he did nothing wrong, so who is he sheilding??
2007-03-20 11:34:18 · update #1
Obviously he wants to be able to lie without facing perjury (or other) charges. That's the only reason to refuse to testify under oath.
He can take the 5th and refuse to testify on the grounds that his statements would incriminate him under federal law. Or he can exert any valid privilege to any specific question. Other than that, under the law, he can be compelled to testify under oath.
2007-03-20 11:30:13 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Thanks for the question. It demonstrates perfectly what's wrong with America. All these answers and not one, not a single one, even eludes to the Constitutional Separation of Powers Doctrine and EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
Here's your answer. You won't like it, but I don't give a hoot.
Mr. Rove is an adviser to the President of the United States. (Executive Branch). The Congress (Legislative Branch) cannot compel him to testify about the inner workings of the Executive Branch or the advice he gave to the president.
If you believe Congress can compel testimony, then you must believe the Congress could subpoena members of the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) and question them as to how court decisions are reached.
Executive Privilege --- is the power held by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch that allows them to resist certain search warrants and other encroachments. As presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other. The Supreme Court re-affirmed this in the case United States v. Nixon.
Deal with it.
2007-03-20 12:15:42 · answer #2 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
probably because Sandy Berger wouldnt testify under oath or take a Lie Detector test after he stole stuff from the national archive in his pants so the 911 commission couldnt read it. r u as concerned about that, or does Hillbillary Clinton's love for Sandy Burglar make that ok?
2007-03-20 11:32:19 · answer #3 · answered by readsomething 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If he is not under oath, he can't be charged with perjury if Congress finds out later that he lied.
And if there are no transcripts, there will be no embarassing details released to the public.
If Dumbyah is so damn confident that there is nothing to hide, and everything is on the up and up, why won't he let them testify in public, under oath?
2007-03-20 11:32:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why should he be a part of the dog and pony show the democrats want to put on. Heck, the US Attorneys are all appointed and Clinton fired 93 of them his first term, why are they mad about the ones recently fired??? Oh, I know, anything to try and make Bush look bad. I guess him causing Katrina, and Rita, and the plague and volcano eruptions isn't enough, they want to dirty the nation more.
For a bunch of so called educated people, we have the dumbest politicians in the world. They cant even figure out what is right or wrong. Maybe we should replace them all.
2007-03-20 11:31:57 · answer #5 · answered by George C 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
It would have a chilling effect on presidential advisors if they had to testify under oath on every thing they said or did.
2007-03-20 11:35:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because pathological liars have a habit of forgetting past lies. He has nothing to hide but his inability to remember his lies. That will be his downfall, although I doubt it will make any difference. The entire administration are liars. And Americans still love, coddle and cheer them on as though they are gods.
2007-03-20 11:40:52 · answer #7 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The question of politically motivated dismissal of Federal Judges is more important to the Nation than whether a president cheated on his wife.
I think Rove and all parties should be questioned under oath.
2007-03-20 11:31:10 · answer #8 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Because while they chop-up our constitution and the bill of rights, They were thoughtful enough of themselves to hide a clause in the second patriot act which protects the entire administration from war crimes commited under clasifications of the war crimes act and the geneva convention.
2007-03-20 11:35:15 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Please at least PRETEND to be honest!
There is NOTHING Bush could ever do that would be enough.
You peolpe should stop being so obsessed with tearing dowm George Bush and start coping with some of the issues that effect this country.
Get a grip!
2007-03-20 11:31:20 · answer #10 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋