or will you be in trouble if you tell the American People the truth? If you buy this explanation: "If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees ... the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," I will sell you the Empire State Building for a GREAT Price Cons. LOL!!!
2007-03-20 11:38:59 · 12 answers · asked by Tom B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you have NOTHING TO HIDE, why don't you allow your home to be searched on a daily basis?
Why not allow a full body cavity search at the whim of the police?
It's pretty simple really. It's called freedom.
Ever hear of the Constitution?
You're probably against wiretapping. why? what are you hiding?
Just look at all the liberal hypocrites now trying to shred the Constitution. It's frightening.
Congress has no right to call them to testify.
2007-03-20 11:43:25 · answer #1 · answered by charbatch 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Gee, somebody could ask that question to Billy Bulger. you recognize, the super time Democrat that virtually ran the state of massachusetts for a on an analogous time as. His brother James "Whitey" Bulger became a brilliant time mobster, yet by some ability he continuously have been given warnings while the law enforcement officials have been after him. He has been on the lamb for a on an analogous time as and Billy stalled Congress as long as he could. Then, finally, under Immunity, so he could no longer incriminate himself and could no longer plead the 5 th, he purely plaun forgot. Sound extensive-unfold? Like Ronald Reagan (in spite of the reality that he would have had alzhiemers on the time, splendid) and Hillary related to the Rose regulation business enterprise billing information, yeah, splendid lower back, between the neatest women human beings in the international forgets an unlawful action. I remember stealing a lollipop while i became 9. i'm no longer frightened of Democrats, a number of their techniques are splendid (opps, I very virtually stated splendid) i'm frightened of what they might decrease to rubble in the event that they get their way. If i needed to stay in Russia, i'd pass.
2016-12-15 04:51:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is called historical precedent.
Sitting presidents do not permit their staffs to testify under oath. If you do the research your will find that they have all, Bill Clinton included, used Executive Privilege in this manner.
It is disingenuous to attempt to make this about the Bush Administration. I encourage you to take the time to do the research, rather than relying on Anti-Bush talking points,
2007-03-20 11:47:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
that's the same "LAME" answer I got also....."If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees ... the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served,"
this is the same crap they said when the American people wanted to know who helped the President and Cheney draft their Energy policy...shortly there after we are at war with Iraq...I smell a rat.
2007-03-20 11:42:40 · answer #4 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because memories wane. An open invitation to prosecute someone for lying under oath. Otherwise, no crimes were committed.
2007-03-24 01:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by edward m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aside from 5th Amendment grounds (self-incrimination), the only reason to refuse to testify under oath would be to enable someone to lie without suffering any legal consequences.
Which pretty much answers the question....
As a side note -- remember all those people who said that you shouldn't object to warantless wiretapping if you didn't have anything to hide? How many of them are now objecting to testimony under oath?
2007-03-20 11:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
See my other responses to the same posting for the umpteenth billionth time...........setting precendent is a bad thing for furture admiistratons, whether one party of the other! Move on!
2007-03-20 11:47:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why in bloody hell would you want me testifying before congressional committees for?
2007-03-20 11:42:42 · answer #8 · answered by Lynn G 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Ask Bill or Hillary that question!
You better have some bodyguards with you when you do.
You are so young, you are confused.
Hang in there.
2007-03-20 11:43:50 · answer #9 · answered by wolf 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
neolibs , it is the presidents decision andhis only
find a new reason to slander bush
I suggest going back to the whole " cowboy\bigoil\halliburton\kerrysmart\texasbad\quagmire
schtick
you people are sooo lame
2007-03-20 11:44:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋