we have all heard a great deal of talk from this administration and Rove himself that if we all have nothing to hide then we shouldn't mind if our phones are tapped without a warrant - well here's a perfect situation for them to lead by example.
Why wouldn't they jump at the chance to have Rove tesify under oath?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070320/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_5
2007-03-20 11:29:43 · 13 answers · asked by nostradamus02012 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, yes, if they have nothing to hide-like the rest of us-seems it should be fine with them. Like all good Americans. They couldn't always wiretap without a warrant-but since 9/11, it's all changed. It strikes me they should be required to tell the truth with being under oath but since they've changed the subpeona rules-so the government gets more protection and we get less?
The US attorneys-only 5 have been fired mid-term in the last 25 years. The Patriot Act changed the rules. I thought the Patriot Act was all about terrorism....
2007-03-20 11:47:06 · answer #1 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He might as nicely have refused, this is as lots certainty as they're going to get out of Rove if he's not placed under oath. this is actual ridiculous. this is like admitting you're no longer likely to tell the certainty in the 1st place! in case you are able to no longer answer the questions under oath, then what? we are meant to take the know-how of the likes of an guy like Karl Rove? Yeah, "have faith me." the boldness of the two considered one of them is well-known with no bounds. the great factor is that a guy with the help of the final call of Sampson, Rove's suited aide, has caved and has suggested he's in a position to take an oath and tell the small print approximately all of this mess. Will they supply up him? They truthfully can in the event that they need, besides the fact that if this is going to in elementary terms upload to the theory of corrupt practices with the help of this administration.
2016-10-19 04:57:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer to that question is pretty obvious.
Isn't it funny that the same people that complain about wasting taxpayer dollars on an investigation were willing to spend $42 million on an investigation into thirty year old business dealings and only could come up with a soiled dress?
2007-03-20 11:44:01 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So he can lie and not get in trouble for it. If he had nothing to hide or did nothing wrong he should be proud to testify under oath.
2007-03-20 11:51:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the hovering Dimocrats would be on him like a school of Parana. Shumer gets big wood every time he even thinks of Rove.
2007-03-20 11:41:45 · answer #5 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If he is under oath he MIGHT have to tell the truth.
He is a Texan and the truth might swell up in his throat and kill him
2007-03-20 11:35:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Karl Rove has not been indited for anything. Just because Schumer and the other losers want to keep wasting US taxpayer dollars with their endless string of Subpoenas.
2007-03-20 11:33:40 · answer #7 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
Maybe he does want to. You don't know that as a fact.
Chances are he doesn't. If he did, it would be like throwing bloody chum to a bunch of sharks. They would ask him any thing and everything, related to Gonzales or not.
2007-03-20 11:35:14 · answer #8 · answered by Lynn G 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Nobody should have to testify, under oath or otherwise in this case. It is well within the president's rights to fire federal attorneys. Clinton did it too. In fact, he once fired them all. This is a non-story. Wouldn't you expect to have the right to fire your council if they weren't doing a satisfactory job for you?
2007-03-20 11:34:05 · answer #9 · answered by Chris J 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
As if you didn't know why they would not jump at that opportunity.
2007-03-20 11:32:47 · answer #10 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋