Read this:
Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors
His behavior sounds fishy to me. Why is worried about a public hearing????
2007-03-20 12:15:24 · 20 answers · asked by Not so looney afterall 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting, he'll allow them to testify, but not under oath! Now why would any person not want someone to testify under oath like the rest of us?
Telling lies perhaps?
Bush is a snake!
2007-03-20 12:26:28 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
More of the usual lies, what else. Carol Lam was on the attorney's that was fired by Gonzales, she's the one who convicted Duke Cunningham, a republican, in California. Right after that conviction she was about to subpoena Dusty Foggo who at that time was the #3 guy in the CIA. He was involved in Hooker gate, and he suddenly thought it wise to resign from the CIA not to long after that. Coincedence? I think not.
The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States. They know what will happen if Rove is forced to testify under oath. They have guilt written all over there faces.
2007-03-20 12:35:17 · answer #2 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"under an order laid down by using the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, U.S. contractors won't be in a position to be prosecuted under Iraqi regulation. Prince stated he believed that rule could stand. "'i'm not sure any foreigner would get a truthful trial in Iraq splendid now,' he stated. 'i think of that they had a minimum of get a truthful trial right here in the US.'" ok, yet while all is above board, then why no longer enable the Iraqis run their very own affairs?...and in the event that they do no longer look to be in a position, how approximately an self sufficient international physique to decide those mercenary thugs?...Oh by using ways, Blackwater donated 2 hundred,000$ to the Republicans final 12 months..."truthful trial"? in the U.S.?, i do no longer think of so. Oh and for the fool who likes me to % out myself as Canadian, I purely have.
2016-12-15 04:53:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no reason to resist public scrutiny. Just the fact that he wants testimony to be in private, not under oath, with no transcripts, proves to me that he wants them to have license to lie, and that proves he doesn't want the truth to come out, which proves to me that he has something to hide, which proves to me he has an unscrupulous agenda, which is in my opinion, obstruction of justice! *sm*
2007-03-20 12:37:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I always thought he was hiding some turtles in the fruit bowl so Barbra would lose her fingers upon reaching for a banana.
2007-03-20 12:19:28 · answer #5 · answered by Blanca 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Alot. This administration and the people who still support it and defend every dispicable action it does should be ashamed of themselves. They are enemies of America.
2007-03-20 12:39:26 · answer #6 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Truth. If it comes out it will be very bad for Bush. Most likely he can keep most of it away from the public by invoking executive privilege and promising pardons for the small fish.
2007-03-20 12:22:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
I bet you'd let the police search your house whenever they want and without a warrant --- after all, you shouldn't be worried if you've done nothing wrong.
2007-03-20 12:28:30 · answer #8 · answered by ML 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
His behavior is perfectly right. Congress does not have the power to subpoena the presidents advisers. They either take them without oath or they don't get them at all.
2007-03-20 12:24:29 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
If I told you it wouldn't be a secret anymore:)
2007-03-20 12:26:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋